Global Warming




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. She doesn't sound like a hoax.

    Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline
    Video
    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10

    • Yep, its a hoax. The moment she said of that pre-Climategate IPCC bilge dump (Fourth Assessment Report, 2007): "that report was written by 620 scientists from forty different countries."

      LOUD RUDE BUZZER NOISE! Wrong. Most of those "scientists" weren't scientists at all, but government employees and similar apparatchiki. In fact, most of whatever pulled-out-of-her-distalmost-sphincter number alleged scientists Ms. Pike is spouting about didn't really participate in the "science" (if we can call it that) central to the AGW conjecture in the IPCC's report.

      I quote Lawrence Solomon's news article, "Numbers racket" (7 November 2009),* which was blurbed: "Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who’s counting":

      "How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.

      "The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous.

      "Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion.

      "Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that 'section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand' and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was 'Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.')

      "The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries."
      ===

      So the core of the matter is that only 53 authors and 55 reviewers actually participated in the "science of climate warming" core of Assessment Report 4 (AR4), not "620 scientists," meaning that Ms. Pike is DEAD RIGHT THERE (D.R.T.).

      Moreover, forty-eight (48) of the fifty-five (55, not "four hundred-plus") reviewers had nothing but unfavorable comments on that critically central Chapter 9.

      Jeez, you wanna talk about "the consensus" here? If anything, even the real consensus among the IPCC's hand-picked rubber stamp wielders gave Chapter 9 of AR4 a flunking grade.

      This is, of course, a completely worthless line of discussion (though I'll admit that Rachel Pike is certainly easy on the eyes even if she's as full of crap as a Christmas goose). To quote the late Dr. Michael Crichton:

      "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

      "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. " **

      So much for Ms. Pike and her numbers game nonsense.

      Sure sounds like a hoax to any honest person looking into this snotty tissue of lies.

      ===
      * http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/07/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

      ** http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20

  2. "However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

    So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming."

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9

    • Ah, the exclusionary principle. Bad timing, kiddo.

      From Watts Up With That?, 8 June 2011, "Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion:" *

      "And so, alarmist climate scientists find themselves under siege by skeptics and increasingly distrusted by the public because they blindly accept the principle of exclusion, in the face of considerable empirical facts that don’t fit the AGW hypothesis. For example, for more than a decade, the earth has not warmed as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Nor are the oceans warming as the hypothesis predicts. Yet, when skeptics point out the problems, alarmists cannot admit they have made a mistake because then the whole alarmist edifice (and the juicy research grants that go with it) would collapse.
      ...
      "The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.

      "And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis."

      ===

      Of course, it's arguable that the AGW bogosity doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. I share with Dr. Jeff Glassman** in his opinion that "Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge."

      Just because a warmista propagandist (some "SkepticalScience"!) is desperate to handwave away "...credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature," and wants all and sundry to ASSUME that "the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming,” we're supposed to receive that crap as if there has ever been OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE presented supporting that factor as the critical-and-or-only cause for what little warming the Earth has been experiencing (at pretty much the same slow, steady multidecadal rate - "hockey stick" lying graphs notwithstanding) since about 1700?

      Heck, the human race didn't even begin to burn petrochemical fuel stocks to any great extent until the latter half of the 19th Century, and though the proven increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) has been documented to continue increasing at an unremittingly linear rate - look up "Keeling Curve" - the most recent bout of global warming ENDED in 1998, and shows absolutely no sign of resuming.

      If the current diminution in solar activity continues, we're likely to continue this cooling spell - and it's likely to worsen further, chiefly by way of cosmic ray influence on cloud cover. I quote:

      "In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization — Clouds.
      ...
      "[Figure 2] The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the "knee" at 10^15eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations." ***

      And decreased solar activity will translated into increased tropospheric ionization, increasing low-altitude cloud cover to cause global COOLING.

      There are indirect as well as direct effects of solar activity. Of course, this is something the climatology caliphate has never factored into their very expensive (taxpayer funded) global climate models, and relying on John Cook for talking points to handwave away the effects of solar variation and cosmic rays**** does nothing to support the "aCO2 is the cause!" hysteria of the AGW fraudsters.

      Greater clarity on the subject comes by way of science educator Joanne Nova, giving voice on her Web site (1 February 2011) to a report titled"The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2," ***** in the conclusion of which we read the following supported assertions:

      "(1) Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The 'greenhouse effect' has become less.

      "(2) Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate

      "(3) Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying

      "(4) No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate

      "(5) Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo"

      Yet another attempt to peddle the preposterous bogosity that is the AGW fraud goes down the tubes.

      The science is against you warmistas. Haven't you gotten it hammered sufficiently through your thick heads yet?

      ===
      * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/

      ** "Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument," online at http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf

      *** http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

      **** http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

      ***** http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20

  3. "A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change."

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8

  4. Scientific consensus in the 70s was global cooling little ice age coming due to behaviour of the Sun.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21

  5. Stefan C. Kosikowski

    More worrisome than temperatures are the 45,000+ synthetic chemicals (and the infinate combinations two or more of them can create) that mankind has polluted our eco-system with.

    Every species on the planet is in decline.

    Once rare cancers and diseases are now commonplace, even in young children. Worse, there is no recourse for people, for the law (thanks to the magic of incorporating) protects the polluters.

    I must also correct the gross mis-understanding surrounding atmospheric temperature rise. To simply cite surface temperatures is monumntally ignorant. The atosphere is liteally all the air and all the water... one must include ocean temperature rises when HONESTLY debating global climate change. Oceans are the Earth's heat sinks, they are critical to understanding the truth of the issue, but alas... both sides of the argument appear oblivious.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9

    • Well, your concern about "atmospheric temperature rise" (which simply hasn't been happening since 1998, in direct and stark contravention to the anthropogenic global warming [AGW] conjecture) is wonderfully misplaced and easily allayed.

      Citing surface temperatures - in order to correlate with historical instrumental records (which started being tabulated in about 1850) and various proxy estimations - is the only way in which recent trends can be accorded any kind of context. Are global average temperatures going up, or down? Without getting some idea of what they've been in the past, how can anybody claim to say?

      Without lying, I mean.

      We hadn't begun to get reliable satellite platforms for sustained observations of the atmosphere, the land surface areas, and the surface of the oceans until the 1960s, and the really useful systems didn't begin to produce good data until about thirty years ago.

      Systems like the ERBE and CERES instruments have produced observational evidence that quite effectively diddles the daylights out of the great AGW bogosity, so the heavily invested "climatology" caliphate have been doing their very best to evade addressing those findings.

      Not even the whole atmosphere is involved in whatever warming has been going on since the Little Ice Age began gradually to abate ('round about 1700). High-altitude aerostat (balloon) weather instruments as well as the satellite systems have shown that the stratosphere dumps its received-from-the-sun heat energy pretty much completely, and does so by direct radiation into space, meaning that it's only the lower portion - the troposphere - with which we have to concern ourselves.

      As for the oceans, ever heard of the Argo project? From their Web site, Argo is "...a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m[eters] of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection."

      Now, the LOWER ocean - below two kilometers' depth - doesn't figure to any significant extent at all in the heat content of the surface, so let's give the Argo people credit for keeping focus on what really matters.

      And the Argo drifters have been showing a generally diminishing trend in ocean temperature readings. Remember that "travesty" bit from Trenberth in the Climategate e-mails? It was the failure of ocean temperature readings (among other factors) to show up the "hidden heat" energy that the AGW conjecture - and all those expensive computer simulation global climate models peddled by the IPCC and the rest of the climatology caliphate - said HAD to be happening because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) greenhouse gas effect.

      The troposphere has mechanisms which serve to carry heat up and away from the Earth to get radiated away into space, including water evaporation (which is what cools the ocean surface areas) and convection currents and low cloud formations (which throw back insolation heat energy by reflection). Negative feedback mechanisms.

      Remember, the preposterous bogosity that is the AGW conjecture relies overwhelmingly on POSITIVE feedback mechanisms to increase heat trapping in the troposphere in order to give us the catastrophic "steambath Earth" they've been predicting, claiming that these positive feedbacks would roughly triple the amount of warming arguably caused by aCO2 increasing the total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

      They just kinda left the negative feedback mechanisms out of their global climate models (GCMs). Was that deliberate duplicity on their part, or were they just incompetent?

      I think there's good argument for both incompetence AND corruption. They started out incompetent, and when they found that the chittering root weevils of the media paid attention to "We're All Gonna Die!" alarmism, and the bloated, power-hungry politicians saw man-made climate catastrophe as a way to squeeze even more cash out of the little people.... Well, as the song goes: "My God, How the Money Rolls In!"

      Okay, so that puts the proverbial wooden stake through the mediastinum of the great, gaudy AGW fraud. More in posts further down the thread.

      Now how about those pathogenic "synthetic chemicals" you're concerned about?

      Not that Mother Nature herself doesn't produce thousands and thousands of carcinogenic, neurotoxic, hemotoxic, mutagenic, and generally noxious substances and dumps 'em into the biosphere by way of processes vegetable, animal, and mineral all the time, mind you. She's been trying to kill you, cripple you, render you sterile, and murder your children in the womb from the moment you were conceived. The human race has spent most of its history as a species teetering on the razor edge of extinction, and none of what got flung at us during those hundreds and thousands of years was "man-made."

      All natural.

      Dr. Paul has already articulated his position on the subject of "...polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities – thus decreasing pollution. He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property."

      Read the Wiki-bloody-pedia page on Dr. Paul's expressed political positions. Seems pretty well-supported to me, but you judge for yourself.

      As things stand, both the federal and (to a lesser extent) the state governments don't so much protect you against polluters as they decide - without much more than a "bedbug letter" acknowledgement of your own personal concerns - what polluters should be ALLOWED to dump into your environment, helping those polluters to a "hold harmless" status with the excuse that the polluters are conforming to government regulations.

      You suffer injury and other loss, and you haven't got the proverbial nitrocellulose dog's chance of chasing 'em through the hell our governments have made of the courts.

      You like that? Dr. Paul surely doesn't, and neither do I.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 20

      • Stefan C. Kosikowski

        My concern is not whether the real and verifiable climate change is natural or man made. Clearly it is happening, or all the glaciers would not be melting. We also have a clear history of the co2 levels in our atmosphere for the past 300,000 years. It is found in the ice core samples drilled in Greenland, Antartica, and elsewhere. Our current levels of co2 in the atmosphere are greater than at any point during those past 300,000 years. This is the result of man's insesant burning of fossil fuels.

        What is far more troubling are the consequences of the climate change, as billions of people will be displaced, their current homes no longer inhabitable. Where will they go? Weather paterns are changing too. Once again... waste your breath denying man's culpability, but the problems are all too real and won't abate through continurd denial.

        That stated... I would never trust the global warming nutcases who insist on these carbon credits and other scams to bilk us of more money (taxes). You truly missed the bigger picture by even going there!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10

        • If tropospheric CO2 levels are capable of increasing Earth's global temperatures, then we have to be able to see - in the paleoclimate proxy evidence particularly - proof of such a causative correlation.

          And there's none. Analysis of such evidence ranging back 400,000+ years (not just 300,000) by way of Vostok ice core data has demonstrated that there's no such correlation. As a matter of fact, it was a guest post by engineer Frank Lasner on this subject to which warmista Cameron had referred - mistakenly - when he tried to peddle his still-unsupported bushwah that Anthony Watts had been producing on his Web site work that is “…largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

          Cameron's problem is that this particular skeptical assertion is true. Australian science educator Joanne Nova (at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/ice-core-evidence-no-endorsement-of-carbons-major-effect/) discussed Lasner's analysis of the Vostok data to a greater extent than Mr. Lasner had been able to do (English is not Mr. Lasner's first language), and further information on the subject was provided by Mr. Lasner later last summer (see http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/update-the-slope-of-temperatures-does-not-appear-related-to-co2-concentration-in-vostok-data-192.php).

          Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes - what little warming we've seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling - has not correlated with those CO2 levels to any extent that can be called reliable.

          No connection at all. The AGW conjecture (which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a "theory") fails, and continues to fail.

          Yes, climate change is happening. We've got historical records as well as physical evidence verifiable by way of instrumental analyses. Unless the objective is to strive for reliable predictability on long-term bases in order to undertake preparation for anticipated adverse events, to what purpose is this discussion being conducted?

          Clearly, the preposterous notion that purposeful human action - in the combustion of petrochemicals - will effect "global warming" by way of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is bogus. There's no proof for it in either the paleoclimate evidence (where such warming cycles as have occurred had always PRECEDED any increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by a lag of about 800 years, quite completely invalidating the assumptions upon which the AGW global climate models have been predicated) or in instrumental data recorded since thermometric monitoring of surface temperatures began to be conducted in 1850.

          Once the matter of "culpability" - more properly CAUSALITY - is disposed of (and it's been quite thoroughly disposed of), then we pass to the question: "How could purposeful human action deal with natural global warming as profound as those levels which prevailed in the Roman Warm and the Medieval Warm climate optima?"

          This, of course, first begs the question whether the restoration of global temperatures to the levels prevailing in either of those periods of great human health and prosperity would be a bad thing, necessarily causing "...billions of people [to] be displaced, their current homes no longer inhabitable."

          Second question, of course, is whether there is any evidence that such a climate change is happening, or is likely to happen in the next century or so.

          So what answer do we have from the climatology caliphate responsible for pushing the AGW conjecture as if it were "settled science"?

          Why, none at all. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

          The historical records of the Medieval Warm and the Roman Warm periods lead to the conclusion that a warming planet will provide even greater carrying capacity for the human race. The projected increases in population would find even greater agricultural resources - in terms of arable land suitable to high-calorie-yield crops - available for exploitation.

          Remember, during the Medieval Warm period, people in the British Isles were growing grapes in vineyards suited to commercial wine production - which they cannot do today, even more than a century and a half after the end of the Little Ice Age - and the Norsemen were colonizing the coasts of both Greenland and present-day North America.

          You want to know what global warming might do to the those "billions of people"? Forget the climatology fraudsters. Ask some agronomists.

          Were any of those billions' "current homes no longer inhabitable" as the result of rising ocean levels (an unlikely occurrence, but let's go with the fraud for the moment), by what evidence can anyone conjure that such displacement must be abrupt?

          Humans have been coping with all sorts of climate change throughout recorded history, and that historical record gives indication that it's global COOLING that has been the real cause of impoverishment and mass death for humanity, not warming.

          But this is all bootless speculation. There's no evidence that significant warming - above the slow, relatively steady rebound in global temperatures recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age - is ever going to happen. The AGW conjecture is without proof, and what evidence has been gathered and honestly examined demonstrates that it has never been viable as an explanation for real-world events.

          So what problems might there be, really?

          If "climatology" as a scientific discipline is going to serve any purpose in helping to answer that question, the whole field needs a basement-to-attic housecleaning, with emphasis on getting rid of the politically connected fraudsters responsible for converting the field into a "Ministry of Truth" support for the politicians and the "carbon credit" banksters and the United Nations apparatchiki.

          I think it's reasonable to ask Dr. Paul how - when he becomes president - he's going to have the U.S. Department of Justice handle the palpable fraud that's been perpetrated by these "climate science" charlatans in their federal grant applications.

          Should be interesting, no?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 20

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Carbondioxide in the atmosphere blocks infrared wavelenghts, which is primarily how our planet sheds excess heat. Increasing the co2 levels will directly correlate with rising temperatures.

            Venus is a planet with massive carbondioide concentrations in the atmosphere. This planet's rotation period is identical to its revolution period around the sun, ergo the same portion of Venus is constantly and forever facing the sun. Yet the planet has a basially universal temperature at all latitdes and longitudes, due to the effect of the carbondioxide concentration.

            I believe, as does the vast majority of the scientific community, that co2 does have a direct correlation to temperature via trapping infrared wavelenghts (heat). The scienific community has nothing to gain monitarily... at least those not working for the fossil fuel companies that is. You can certainly believe it is all some conspiracy theory, but clearly Dr. Paul doesn't from what HE has actually stated for the record.

            Good day, Sir.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 9

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski writes: "Carbondioxide in the atmosphere blocks infrared wavelenghts, which is primarily how our planet sheds excess heat. Increasing the co2 levels will directly correlate with rising temperatures.

            "Venus is a planet with massive carbondioide concentrations in the atmosphere. This planet’s rotation period is identical to its revolution period around the sun, ergo the same portion of Venus is constantly and forever facing the sun. Yet the planet has a basially universal temperature at all latitdes and longitudes, due to the effect of the carbondioxide concentration."

            Ah, the Hansen error. Hansen, Wang, et. al., "Greenhouse Effects Due to Man-made Perturbations of Trace Gasses" in *Science*, 1976. Confusing the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus with the effects of trace increases in the atmosphere of a different planet.

            The atmosphere on Venus is NINETY (90) TIMES DENSER than is the atmosphere on Earth. In addition, it's closer to the Sun. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in the atmosphere of Venus; it's going to be hotter than on Earth.

            What you're missing, Stefan, is the fact that the laws of physical chemistry are against this preposterous supposition.

            Even on Venus, where the atmosphere is nearly 100% carbon dioxide (and 90 times denser than on the Earth), there cannot be 100% absorption of all infrared light. Each CO2 molecule on Venus increases atmospheric warming by a small increment, and each additional CO2 molecule will have a miniscule increasing effect ad infinitum, but the effect becomes saturated even on Venus. Were that not the case, the atmospheric temperature forcing on the second planet from the sun would just keep on pushing the temperature higher and higher and higher.

            And it doesn't, does it? High as they are, the temperatures on Venus have remained pretty consistent in spite of Hansen's foolish blunder thirty-five years ago.

            When Venus turns into a ball of pure molten rock, THEN we can start talking about how - allegedly - "co2 does have a direct correlation to temperature via trapping infrared wavelengths (heat). " Until then? Eh, not so much.

            The "climatology" caliphate's computer simulations - those vaunted "climate models" - accept fatally simple assumptions about how carbon dioxide functions as a greenhouse gas in a real system far more complicated than their clumsy abstract concepts have been able to encompass.

            At any concentration, CO2 can only effect the absorption of radiant energy from the sun to a limited effect, and the absorption curve tails off logarithmically with each incremental increase in CO2 levels. This absorption effect has been just about completely saturated on the Earth, and even doubling the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere most probably wouldn't have any significant effect on global temperatures.

            If the Earth's atmosphere functioned in reality the way it's supposed to do in the "climatology" charlatans' computer models, might could be that we'd see the kinds of warming Hansen and his co-authors were yelping about in 1976.

            But reality is far more complex than are the computer models of incompetent third-rate fumblers trying to pass themselves off as scientists. Ocean currents aren't modeled in those alarmist climate computer simulacra (remember the mention I'd made of the Argo buoy system?), the effects of condensation and atmospheric convection currents and rain are not modeled, and - most importantly of all - the negative feedback effects of clouds and humidity on the planet Earth aren't modeled.

            And then there's Stefan's assertion that "The scienific community has nothing to gain monetarily...."

            Wrong again. Hoo, boy, are you wrong. Stefan, in recent years - in these Unites States alone (I haven't got a reliable estimate on how things are going in the EU and other western nations, but its pretty much along the same lines), taxpayer-funded government grants for "research" into man-made global climate change and its supposed effects has been running at $4 billion per year.

            FOUR BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in government grants to fund "scientists" working on the basis of the most thoroughly bogus presumption in the history of scientific inquiry.

            In the summer of 2009 (before Climategate broke), science educator Joanne Nova estimated that since 1989 a total of $79 billion had been allocated to such "research" by the U.S. government alone. *

            During that same twenty-year period, one of "the fossil fuel companies" - Exxon-Mobil - had put a total of $23 million behind skeptical contrarian scientific work on the subject.

            Let's see.... That ratio works out to less than one thousandth of what the U.S. government alone put behind nothing but AGW rah-rah in the same two decades.

            No skeptical scientific inquiry for our politicians and bureaucrats, no siree!

            The plain fact of the matter is that most of the responsibly skeptical opposition to the great man-made climate change fraud has come from retired scientists (who don't have to depend on government grant funding any more, and who can speak their minds as they see fit) and similar unpaid volunteers.

            If you want to speak about "nothing to gain monetarily," Stefan, the people you're talking about are NOT "[t]the scientific community" in the persons of the ever-so-entrenched climatology caliphate.

            They've been making out like bandits. Hansen's blithering error starting with his study of the planet Venus has "showed [them] the way to promotion an' pay."

            It's the people on the other side of this debate - statisticians like Stephen McIntyre and meteorologists like Timothy Ball and Anthony Watts and solar physicist Piers Corbyn and astrophysicst Sallie Baliunas - who are demonstrating real scientific integrity, and they're doing it without that FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in taxpayer funding that's being sloshed all over the catastrophic AGW rah-rah crowd.

            ===
            * http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 20

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            What your missing, sir, is that the entire atmosphere of Venus is the same relative temperature regardless of distance from the equator, even though the same side of the planet constantly faces the sun. Mercury is even closer to the sun, has a similar rotation vs. revolution set up as Venus, yet the side constantly facing the sun is extremely hot while the opposite side is hundreds of degrees below zero. It's the atmosphere, the co2 is trapping the infrared energy. Mercury has no atmoshere because it lacks sufficient mass to possess the gravity to retain one. Also, direct radiation from the sun can not physically cause this phenomenon of uniform temperatures.

            P.S.- If you truly believe all these scientists are frauds and theives, I am truly sorry for you. These good people could make hundreds of times more money if they were truly frauds and thieves... but then they would be working for one of those affore mentioned fossil fuel corporations.

            You know it's sad but true!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 10

          • What you're missing, Stefan, is that conditions on the planet Venus do NOT prevail on the planet Earth. A relative uniformity of temperature distribution from pole to equator detectable from space on a planet closer to the sun and with an atmosphere NINETY (90) TIMES DENSER than that of the Earth speaks rather more to the distribution of heat energy by convection than anything else.

            I'm just a country GP, not a planetary astronomer or atmospheric physicist, and while I probably know more about that otherwise uninteresting gravity well a bit further in on the plane of the ecliptic than do most people, what has been happening on Venus to permit that planet to shed all that heat - and not turn into a ball of molten slag - instead of fulfilling your expectation that its carbon dioxide atmosphere must trap every bit of infrared radiant energy in defiance of the laws of physics has so little to do with what's happening on the Earth as the result of miniscule anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 since the onset of the first industrial age that I'm wondering right now what the heck has you fixated upon it, and by concatenation on Hansen's 1976 mega-blunder.

            In the very dense atmosphere of Venus, y'see, that carbon dioxide has got to be carrying heat - by convection and conduction, most likely - as well as trapping infrared radiation, and subsequently radiating that heat away into space so as to secure a homeostasis of sorts, maintaining surface and overall atmospheric temperatures at high but stable levels.

            What are you supposed to be, the incarnation of Carson Napier?

            As for the fraudulence of the climatology caliphate, you're mistaken in your use of the word "believe."

            I don't "believe" in their concerted violation of both professional ethics and the criminal statutes any more than I "believe" that when a patient presents in the Emergency Department with a surgically unmarred belly and a complaint of epigastric or periumbilical abdominal pain accompanied by anorexia, nausea and vomiting, with right lower quadrant direct and rebound tenderness, there's a diagnosis of acute appendicitis that has to be ruled out, and in addition to the usual lab studies, I'm going to want an abdominal CT scan as soon as possible.

            The indications of fraud among "these scientists" of yours - not all scientists by any means, but most certainly the C.R.U. e-mail correspondents indisputably exposed by the Climategate information archive - are so strong that it is nothing less than dereliction of one's professional duty to permit them to evade thorough and conscientiously skeptical investigation. The stench of corruption on them is undeniable.

            Heck, you'd think that if they were honest men and women, they'd welcome such investigations. They'd want to clear their good names, wouldn't they?

            Oh? They don't? Hm....

            And when it comes to your obstinate, obdurate, obtuse vapor-lock about "those affore mentioned fossil fuel corporations," Stefan, remember that the BIG money - over a thousand to one - has been for twenty years and more on the side of the fraud, not against it.

            Were that not enough, since AGW became the Received and Holy Word of the professional popularity contestants who run for elected office, the fossil fuel companies have become "energy" companies, and have largely bought into the "green" flim-flam.

            They're making out like bandits there, too. Plenty of plunder to go around, after all.

            Or have you been concentrated on Venus so obsessively that you've lost sight of what's been happening here on the Earth?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 21

          • "Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes - what little warming we've seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling - has not correlated with those CO2 levels to" ***"any extent that can be called reliable."*** {subjective, much?}

            "No connection at all. The AGW conjecture" ***{care to enlighten us with the hard evidence?}*** "(which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a "theory") fails, and continues to fail."

            Really? A theory? Not so, according to the wikipedia page on Global Warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

            Also, how the hell can you say that "co2 lag" is the smoking gun that proves AGW false when you say there is no correlation at all? You're contradicting yourself.

            Arguing with you (Tucci78) is like playing whack-a-mole. Instead of moles, it's the same claims repeated over and over again that have been rebutted time and again. You chose to dismiss these rebuttals, yet flame people who challenge yours. Again, you've failed so far at presenting a succinct argument that proves co2 has become a climate "driver" due to human activity vs. a "passenger" in the natural cycle. That's what I want to hear. Succinctly too, without all of the useless analogies, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, etc. Of course we're talking about a complex systems problem, so there are no simple answers- but you can do a lot better than you have been.

            I don't expect it, however. Just more lame false accusations and insults that only bury your position further into question.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10

          • Like the proverbial pooch persistently piddling on the rug and thinking that he's claimed it as his territory thereby, we've got Cameron returning, and this time he's citing "Wiki-bloody-pedia" as his support for his "Liberal" fascist flaming idiot perseverations about the anthropogenic global climate change bogosity.

            Gawd, smell the flop-sweat on him.

            In the words of journalist James Delingpole:

            "If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. 'Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy', is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists." *

            By extension, the article Cameron's citing by rights should kick you over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth

            At least we know that Cameron isn't William Connolley. Connolley is at least educated in the sciences, even if he's a perfidious liar. He's a SMART crook. Cameron? Er, let's just say he's "disadvantaged."

            Proof of that, of course, is in another one of Cameron's failures to put together a coherent simulation of an argument. The silly goof has to mutilate two paragraphs of a post of mine above and then pretend he's done something substantive in the way of rebuttal. What I'd written was:

            "Over the course of the 20th Century, anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have been linear and unremitting, but the climate changes – what little warming we’ve seen, interspersed with periods of significant global cooling – has not correlated with those CO2 levels to any extent that can be called reliable.

            "No connection at all. The AGW conjecture (which has never yet been supported to the level of reliability at which it can be called a “theory”) fails, and continues to fail."

            Inasmuch as I've supported these contentions in earlier posts, Cameron's just gotta try - like an idiot - to reduce them to unintelligibility. He can't respond to 'em, that's for sure. He doesn't.

            And he wants to fantasize that the 800-year lag between proven prehistoric episodes of global warming and upspikes in atmospheric CO2 levels - thus proving that atmospheric hypercapnea is a consequence, not a cause of past global warming - is the ONLY "smoking gun" disproving Cameron's cherished AGW fraud. Sheesh. As if.

            See preceding posts, emphasis on "negative feedback mechanisms" as well as references to the failure of "the climate scene" to provide hard evidence backing up any of their claims about unalloyed positive feedback effects (that step (3) in their failure chain).

            None of these warmistas - Cameron or his co-religionists - has ever once in this forum come up with anything that could be imaginatively considered a "rebuttal" to the statements I've made here.

            Including my assessment of Cameron as a flaming idiot, mind you.

            I mean, he keeps on PROVING it. What the heck else can I do but maintain focus on the diagnosis?

            Cameron, what gives you to assert that you're "arguing" anything? You're a joke out of a Monty Python sketch. You haven't made a real argument since I found you furunculating in this forum. Every time you're squeezed, we get out of you nothing more than the contents of a sigmoid diverticulum.

            (You're online, Cameron; look it up.)

            You want public proof that you're a flaming idiot, Cameron? Okay. From your own post, addressed to me:

            "Again, you’ve failed so far at presenting a succinct argument that proves co2 has become a climate 'driver' due to human activity vs. a 'passenger' in the natural cycle."

            What the heck? Cameron, that's YOUR position in these exchanges, not mine. Your burden. I have contended - with support - that those advancing the AGW contention have failed to provide evidence proving the contention that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) is in any way a "driver" of global warming.

            Or, indeed, that such little global warming as has taken place - slowly and more or less steadily - since the Little Ice Age began to abate (circa 1700) has accelerated to any statistically significant extent in the decades since the First Industrial Age began and aCO2 content in the atmosphere began to increase as the result of petrochemicals combustion.

            I've said that the direct tropospheric heat trapping effect of aCO2 is insignificant, and that there is no proof of positive feedback operating in the troposphere (see link (3) below again) to lead to sufficient global warming as to prove adverse in any way whatsoever.

            Heck, it doesn't even look as if we're going to reach temperatures in the next century or so equivalent to those prevailing in the Roman Warm climate optimum - that word is OPTIMUM - much less what was reported during the even more prosperous Medieval Warm.

            Cameron, you're hopeless as well as brainless. I'd take pity on you, but that's awful hard for an ex-farm boy to do when confronted by dangerous vermin like you.

            ===
            * http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            It appears your argument is that the carbondioxide somehow absorbs the infrared wavelenghts (heat) and retains it?

            That would be in error, Sir.

            Any molecule, carbondioxie or most any other in nature will absorb electromagnetic waves, which shall cause "n" valence electrons to jump (or excite) into a higher energy field, that is highly unstable, lasting a fraction of a second before those valence electrons fall back into their "normal" state, which immediately causes an emmission of infrared energy out of that molecule.

            What I have learned is...

            Carbondioide is a relatively large molecule compared to the primary elements of nitrogen and oxigen that comprise our atmosphere. The issue with co2 is reflection, not absorbion. It doesn't require massive concentration in the atmosphere to absorb the heat, merely a layer thick enough to trap the Earth's radiated heat (infrared wavelenghts).

            Clouds and their water vapor represent another relatively larger molecule compared to nitrogen and oxygen, causing a similar effect during the dark cycle (night) as temperature do not significantly fall in high humidity or cloudy nights vs. clear sky nights.

            Your argument sounds really sexy, but seems to miss the critical points. Also, something you seem to not understand...

            Anything that man puts into the environment, such as burning fossil fuels... the polluters are the ones that must prove they are doing no harm. They are the ones changing what is natural about the Earth. People who are skeptical do not have to prove the harm, Sir. That is simply perposterous, for we are not the ones FUCKING UP THE PLANET.

            Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gasses like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!

            Thank you.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Wow, my comment is being held for moderation. I did not realize this web-site restricted FREE SPEECH!!!

            OK... I'll try again, sorry if it becomes a repeat if the first try gets approved.

            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

            It appears your argument is that the carbondioxide somehow absorbs the infrared wavelenghts (heat) and retains it?

            That would be in error, Sir, for that is the SPONGE effect, not a greenhouse effect.

            Any molecule, be it carbondioxie or most any other in nature, will absorb electromagnetic waves, which shall cause “n” valence electrons to jump (or excite) into a higher energy field, that is highly unstable, lasting a fraction of a second before those valence electrons fall back into their “normal” state, which immediately causes an emmission of infrared energy out of that molecule.

            What I have learned is…

            Carbondioide is a relatively large molecule compared to the primary elements of nitrogen and oxgen that comprise our atmosphere. The issue with co2 is reflection, not absorbion. It doesn’t require massive concentration in the atmosphere to absorb the heat, merely a layer thick enough to trap the Earth’s radiated heat (infrared wavelenghts). Again... think of the greenhouse. It is made primarily of glass, which allows relatively higher frequency (shorter wavelength) electromagnetic waves to pass through; but the lower frequency (longer wavelength) infrared wavelengths cannot pass through the glass. They reflect back inward retaining the heat. This same effect happens in your automobile with the windows closed up.

            Clouds and their water vapor represent another relatively larger molecule compared to nitrogen and oxygen, causing a similar effect during the dark cycle (night) as temperature do not significantly fall in high humidity or cloudy nights vs. clear sky nights.

            The greenhouse (so to speak) about the Earth that mankind is creating is incomplete. It is like a greenhouse under construction, without all the glass panels installed yet... or your automobile analogy with the windows partially open. As more and more greeenhouse gases are dumped into the atmosphere, the Earth's greenhouse becomes more complete or more efficient... or it is like rolling up the windows in your car!

            Your arguments sounds really sexy, particularly to the non-thinking types, but seem to miss the critical points all together. Also, something you seem to not understand…

            Anything that man puts into the environment, such as burning fossil fuels… the polluters... they are the ones that must prove they are doing no harm. They are the ones changing what is natural about the Earth. People who are skeptical do not have to prove the harm, Sir. That is simply perposterous, for we are not the ones SCREWING UP THE PLANET.

            Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gases like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!

            Thank you.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6

          • Dunno why your post got held, Stefan. It's not very sensible, but they let Cameron post, and he hasn't made any sense yet.

            Boiling your latest post down, it reduces to:

            "Prove all the co2 and other greenhouse gases like methane that these corporatios have altered our eco-system with are benign!"

            Tch. Yet another warmista who's never passed a college course in Logic - or done any competitive debate, even in high school.

            Stefan, you do NOT ask a disputant to prove a negative. It's logically impossible.

            The burden of proof, instead is on the person advancing the proposition, and the proposition in question is "Resolved: that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) imposes upon the Earth sufficient heat-trapping effect to cause adverse global warming."

            To which the proper response is "prove it," together with such rejoinders as:

            "The aCO2 levels have gone up at increasing rates since the late 1990s, and yet since 1998 the very accurate satellite platform global temperature measuring systems (modern developments less subject to heat island and other errors than are surface station thermometers) have shown NO global warming, and indeed what appear to be cooling regimes. You got an explanation for that disconnect?"

            I haven't read anything from you, Stefan, or any other warmista in this forum who's been able to reconcile the AGW conjecture with that FAILURE of the planet to warm, especially since it's become impossible for the C.R.U. correspondents pantsed in the Climategate exposure to sequester and "cook" the archival global temperature datasets as the only sources of information on this phenomenon.

            But that's only one sticking point. I've discussed plenty of others, upon which you and your co-religionists have either broken your teeth or evaded like the weasels you so truly are.

            The rest of your stuff - about pollutants - is a point largely well-taken, but fails catastrophically as a whole. The "corporations" really don't have any burden to prove that their effluents do NOT pose hazards to public health.

            That's precisely akin to demanding that the manufacturers of foodstuffs labeled as containing peanuts do NOT cause peanut allergy reactions in individual persons who have no history of such allergies before consuming their next portion of the those manufacturers' products.

            Once proof of harm is established by objective evidence obtained honestly and reliably by way of reproducible methods, THEN the producer is responsible for abating the public nuisance he had been releasing into the commons. Before that, how the heck could he be said to know that whatever-it-is had been capable of causing anybody harm?

            Classifying aCO2 a "pollutant" is insane. Heck, under that construe, Stefan, you personally are "polluting" the air this very minute, as you read this. Even the water vapor in your breath is a global warming component of the atmosphere. Quit exhaling, why don'tcha?

            Oh, yeah. Your "SPONGE effect" and "rolling up the windows in your car!" analogies are very, very stupid, the latter especially because it implies that the Earth is a closed system when it obviously (and demonstrably) is not. You'd be ashamed of them if you had the moral fiber (or the intelligence) to have such a sentiment.

            Tsk.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Well, it appears you are nothing but a buffoon, Tucci.

            Those changing the environment must prove they are doing no harm, not the other way around. The Earth and our shared environment is not their personal property to despoil for profit. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our future generations. It appears you have no concept of justice!

            P.S.- You totally lost this argument with your constant personal attacks, which you clearly employ each time you are bested on the intellectual arena.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5

          • Stefan, I can't in good faith call you a "flaming idiot" (that's Cameron's well-earned title in this forum) but "cement-headed schmuck" is working its way toward the front of the differential diagnosis. You're on the World Wide Web right now, and you can't look up the concept called "burden of proof"? Heck, even Wiki-bloody-pedia ought to serve your purposes.

            Presuming, of course, that your purposes include honesty, of which there's zero indication, but what the heck. Let me see.... Yeah. Here y'go:

            (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

            (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

            Your drooling fixation ("Those changing the environment must prove they are doing no harm, not the other way around") is nothing more than a massive load of crap, for reasons I've already gently and considerately and patiently explained, and you've blown chunks all over "the argument" repeatedly, proving that you're not here to learn but to peddle what is either a religious whackjob article of faith with you (highest probability in the differential regarding your own peculiar pathology) or you have a pecuniary interest in extending the rapidly-dying political fraud that is the AGW bogosity.

            So are you out of your (let's be charitable) mind, or are you just another liar? Well, unless you get the hellangone out of here, time will tell, won't it?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16

    • Water vapor blocks the IR-heat radiation due to a oxygen-hydrogen stretch-vibration. Carbon dioxide/methene/etc. are at parts-per-millionlevel, water vapor 5 powers of ten higher and variable. All statistics are swamped by water vapor.
      Statistically melanoma cancer is increasing since the 70s. So are extensive sunbathing vacations and indoor sunbanks.
      Smoking supposedly causes impotence reveals a statistical study among Vietnam veterans. So does traumatic shell shock.
      Leaving out overwhelming variables is the name of the game in case of socalled global warming.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 18

  6. First let me say I have sincere respect for you Mr. Paul. You seem to be one of the few politicians that hasn't sold out to corporations or extreme ideology and I thank you.

    Global warming/climate change. It's so much more than just temperature fluctuations. We all have to look at the whole picture which includes but is not limited to:

    Pollution (this alone is immense, esp. in upcoming third world countries. Pollution kills the creatures that absorb CO2 much of it being aquatic life)
    De-forestation
    Mountaintop removal
    Over population (America is beginning to wane...)
    Overfishing
    Diseases of plants and trees caused by globalization
    Fracking
    Loss of habitat
    etc.

    I live in the Appalachian mountains, what I put in the streams up here (and I don't - just making a point) end up in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It's (we're) all connected. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Please, when looking at this issue look beyond temperature and see the forest instead of just the trees.

    AND, I have been forwarding the link to my friends about your Industrial Hemp bill. Good job Mr. Paul.

    SSS

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    • On the "Wiki-bloody-pedia" Web page on Dr. Paul's political positions, special reference is drawn to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environment, where can be found the following:
      ===
      As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities - thus decreasing pollution. He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:

      "The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property .... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us .... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."

      He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."
      ===

      On that Wiki-bloody-pedia page there are active URL links to support for these assertions. Regarding "Climate Change," the creators of that Web page write:
      ===
      In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization." He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than "government expenditures and special-interest politics."
      ===

      On environment-related legislative issues, "Dr. No" is (as expected) a strict constitutionalist. From the cited Wiki-bloody-pedia page:
      ===
      While he had stated his membership in the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition in a June interview, he did not recall the group's name in the later interview, describing it only as "a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely."

      In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.

      He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.

      Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.

      He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.

      He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.

      He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.

      He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.
      ===

      I would add that hemp - Cannabis sativa strains - raised for fiber and seed do NOT produce the high amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the intoxicant sought by people using marijuana for psychoactive purposes. Best production of seed and fiber comes only with close-set planting, the kind that creates the natural thickets one sees when these plants grow wild as "ditch weed." Marijuana growers know that only plants which are widely spaced (and therefore free to become broad and bushy) develop high contents of THC in harvested leaves.

      Hemp patches grown by subsistence farmers in America throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries were the principal sources of the fiber from which these settlers created their "homespun" clothing. Unlike cotton, hemp grows readily - as a weed - in regions well north of the Mason-Dixon line, and both the fiber and the seed derivatives were valued as the primary reasons for cultivating this crop.

      Cannabis also grows well on very poor soil - unlike cotton - and both cultivation and harvesting is less exhaustive of the soil and less labor-intensive.

      Contrary to the assertions of neoconservatives like Ann Coulter (who are terrified by Ron Paul in every aspect of his political positions), Dr. Paul's stand on the re-commercialization of cannabis as a lawful farm crop is in accord with his defense of the U.S. Constitution and plain common sense.

      Just wanted to get that down solidly.

      Nothing I've written above is ex officio Dr. Paul, but the Wiki-bloody-pedia page cited is - as stipulated - supported by citations leading to Dr. Paul's stated viewpoints on these matters.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 19

  7. Dear Cameron and Tucci,

    Can't you see that you're in love with each other? Cameron, where would you be if it weren't for your sweet paramour, Tucci? And Tucci, who would you caress with your lovely locutions, if not for the fair Cameron?

    I mean, really, all this vitriol is just a cover, right? Aren't you guys actually cuddled up in a bubble bath, as we speak, responding to each other's posts on your respective laptops, as you exchange winks and air-kisses from across a sea of lavender-scented foam?

    Your pal,
    Shelby

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

    • Ooh, kinky. Also creepy. Something out of Penthouse Forum, or maybe one of those online amateur porn Web sites.

      Or would it be risathra (see Larry Niven's *Ringworld* novels), in which a human being - me - seeks non-fecundative copulation with an alien critter - Cameron?

      Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm an old married guy, uxorious to the nth degree, with a flock of grandchildren, and Cameron is immured in his (her?) mom's basement someplace, avoiding regular bathing and surviving on take-out from Mickey D's.

      Besides, with somebody as duplicitous and disrespectful of human rights as Cameron, who could trust him (her?) not to bring every transmissible virus, bacterium, coccus, mycele, and prion known to modern medicine into whatever contact in which he (she?) engages?

      I wouldn't want even to come into the physical presence of Cameron without high-level infectious diseases precautions. Double-gloved, too.

      So forget the "bubble bath." I take showers, and Cameron shows every indication that he (she) hasn't bathed in quite a while.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14

      • You're projecting your own loathed self image, Tucci. I don't make posts throughout the workday, if you haven't noticed. Shouldn't you be busy tending patients if you are the GP you claim to be?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

        • *Chuckle!* Just because Cameron's a flaming idiot who can't string words in a row without painfully treading his own prepuce, he thinks that my posts in this forum take a lot of time. '

          Just what do YOU claim to be, Cameron? Some kind of part-time counterman at the local Mickey D's?

          Nah. That'd require you to wash your hands and otherwise conform to rules of hygiene. There's absolutely no demonstration in your posts here that you've got even an undergraduate education in any field remotely related to the sciences, and it'd be surprising if it could be shown that you've found productive work in any technical field of any kind.

          I have respect for plumbers and electricians and IT guys. You, Cameron?

          Nothing but contempt.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14

  8. My main problems with the pro-ACC stance is three fold. The details about

    1- We need to learn to deal with natures decisions, not the other way around. We are already too anthro-centric. If it gets hot then most likely it is a law of physics that we have do deal with and not the result of the evil lord aka "man".

    2- The idea that only climatologists can interpret climate studies smacks of saying that only the Pope/Imams/Gurus can interpret the sacred word.

    3- The evidence being used is questionable at best. While I can't say if the final numbers are true or false, the interpretation is made even more questionable and I become even more skeptical.
    3a- measurements taken of prehistoric artifacts (fossils, etc) and manipulated to work in an unproven model. So the proof of the model is based on the model? And the holy scriptures say the holy scriptures are true too.
    3b- the result of computer simulations: Simcity is fun, but please don't actually build something based on it.
    3c- using a strong fudge factor. This doesn't damn the conclusions, just like Einsteins theories stood up despite the cosmological constant.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    • Well, there's a reasonable non-scientist's approach to the subject.

      As theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once put it:

      "Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13

      • Do doctors earn science degrees or liberal arts degrees?

        Why, they earn science degrees!

        So Tucci78, are you ignorant, or just not an expert?

        LOL

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

        • Stefan C. Kosikowski

          Good one, Plum!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

        • This "Plum" fruitcake facetiously asks: "Do doctors earn science degrees or liberal arts degrees?"

          I got my undergraduate degree in Biology. One of the guys in the med school class following mine had his in Philosophy, and had to spend a couple of extra years in college to get the required science courses under his belt before he could apply to medical school. Almost all of my classmates (and colleagues) did their undergraduate training in the sciences, and quite a few had postgraduate experience and degrees in scientific disciplines before they entered medical school.

          We had a couple of guys whose qualifications in postgraduate work let them "test out" of gross anatomy and histology. They wound up working as lab instructors in those courses.

          Yet another classmate of mine was an "ABD" ("all but dissertation") PhD in Biochemistry who was not allowed - by the Biochemistry Department - to similarly test out, and he spent all of the first year making the chief of the Biochem Department VERY uncomfortable both in the lecture hall and in the lab during Q&A.

          They really shoulda let him test out, the pompous dorks.

          I'm not an expert on atmospheric physics, or meteorology, or oceanography (did a buncha stuff in marine biology as an undergraduate, but mostly I was into embryology, chordate morphology and physiology, endocrinology and suchlike), but I figure the Biology Department did its job in getting me grounded in scientific methodology sufficient for me to know when someone in a different discipline ISN'T adhering to scientific method and is not presenting valid, complete, and honestly-compiled objective evidence in the support of extraordinary conjectures like the preposterous bogosity of the man-made climate change horsepuckey.

          As I've observed in this forum, you don't have to be a hen to tell when an egg is rotten.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  9. Timotheus Pfeiffer

    What bothers me; is AGW the only environmental issue Ron Paul recognizes?

    What about preventing companies from using brooks and rivers as garbage dumps, from polluting the air with toxins and from destroying irreplaceable wildlife habitats.

    Such costs /must not/ be externalized and thus socialized. They have to be borne by whomever is causing them.

    I'm an ardent supporter of a 'hands-off' government. But anyone who has read anything about game theory or the Tragedy of the Commons knows that communal goods (like our environment) must be protected by short-term exploitation to ensure a long-term prosperity.

    What are Ron Paul's views on these issues?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

    • I can't speak for Dr. Paul. I'd only met him once, at a convention more than twenty years ago, but I daresay he's gotten himself on the record about this. You're on the Web, and you can use a search engine to dig it up for yourself.

      Speaking on my own hook - not his - I can tell you that the whole issue of environmental pollution (the degradation of what in political philosophy has been termed "the commons") by "...using brooks and rivers as garbage dumps, from polluting the air with toxins and from destroying irreplaceable wildlife habitats" is a matter of miscreants violating other people's property rights.

      English common law - which is the basis for most of civil law in these United States - had for generations dickered over what economists call "negative externalities" imposed upon innocent bystanders. It's a lot of what tort law is properly supposed to handle.

      But in England (establishing precedents which came to run in the American colonies and then in these United States), politically connected businesses got special "dispensation" from politicians and bureaucrats to dump their wastes into rivers, to discharge smoke and ash into the air and onto the ground where their neighbors lived, and even to occupy public lands - the common grazing grounds which communities maintained so families could pasture their milch cows - for commercial exploitation.

      This was supposed to be for "the public good." Bullpuckey. It was graft in action, nothing else.

      What was happening then - and what has happened in America since - was nothing more or less than the violation of the private citizen's property rights.

      17th Century philosophers like John Locke (yet another medical doctor who got involved in politics) spoke of property rights as "having a property in" something. You, Timotheus, have "a property in" the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, the domicile in which you live. Other people acting negligently or deliberately to degrade that which you have "a property in" are VIOLATING your property rights.

      It's the duty of government officers to protect you against the violation of your rights.

      That's what empowers (heck, REQUIRES) these thugs to protect the environment. It has nothing to do with government "ownership" of that environment. The government has no right to own anything except that which serves directly to fulfill its legitimate functions, and the only legitimate function of the government in these United States is the protection of individual human rights.

      Heck, it can't even be said - in the strictest sense - that the government has any right to exist. The American people created it, and the American people can snuff it out of existence the moment we decide it doesn't serve our interests any more.

      As for "irreplaceable wildlife habitats...." Well, there's a solution to that, too. But I don't think you're gonna like it.

      What real people own - to their benefit, to their genuine interest - they tend to take care of. When the officers of government "own" those "irreplaceable wildlife habitats" you care about, just what real interest do those government EMPLOYEES and popularity contest winners (elected politicians) have in keeping them from getting ruined?

      Our national and state wildlife reserves have always been run badly. Nobody with any education in ecology (as opposed to the "green" Luddite religious whackjobs who posture as "environmentalists") disputes the fact that neither the federal nor the state governments have done anything but a completely horrible job as stewards of the land.

      This could surprise anybody? Timotheus, every politician (with the spectacular exception of Ron Paul and a couple of people like him) runs around with a big "For Sale!" sign on his forehead. The bureaucrats are just the same; look into that "rotating door" bit about how businesses hire experienced former government employees all the time.

      That "rotating door" just WHIRLS in the pharmaceuticals industry. A few years in the FDA (especially the Office of New Drugs) can get you a nice chunk of change among the medicine manufacturing companies.

      The solution - and, again, you're not gonna like this - is to put those "irreplaceable wildlife habitats" into the hands of private persons who are committed to their maintenance as habitats.

      I don't like the "environmentalists." Politically, I find them utterly hateful, not merely because they're lying, cheating, vicious goons pushing the anthropogenic global warming fraud, but also because they fundamentally hate the human race, and support the violation of individual human rights every chance they get.

      This understood, I would still prefer to see the national parks system - and all the rest of America's "irreplaceable wildlife habitats" - in the hands and under the control of the Sierra Club and suchlike than in the filthy grip of the U.S. government.

      So with regard to pollution, the idea is to get our government wastoids to do their bloody jobs in protecting YOUR property rights, abating rather than abetting the degradation of the commons.

      And when it comes to "irreplaceable wildlife habitats," it's simply a matter of getting them into PRIVATE PROPERTY status and out of government "ownership" completely.

      I don't know about how Dr. Paul thinks about this, but I suspect you can find out - in detail - if you poke around. It probably won't be much different.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8

  10. Each time I read "AGW", I associate the abbreviation with Al Gore Warming.
    Confusing.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

    • While I appreciate Al Gore's intentions to spread public awareness about his understanding of the effects us humans have on the planet, I think he's made a few mistakes with his delivery that have actually done more harm than good. Specifically the question of co2 lagging climate which was not adequately addressed.

      The argument I think reflects the best science at the moment is that atmospheric co2 concentrations lag behind due to a natural climate cycle (Milankovich cycle) where outside factors are the drivers (forcing mechanisms) and the resulting changes in co2 concentrations, water vapor, methane, etc are feedback mechanisms. From what I've studied so far, it seems that co2 has possibly become a forcing mechanism through a paradigm shift (aka the last 150 years of fossil fuel-based industrial activity) which has never been the case before. It seems that humans are the first lifeforms to extract and burn hydrocarbons for sustenance, and that there are potential consequences- akin to the 3rd law of physics that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Basically my entire argument is that evidence supports some unknown degree of AGW, but cannot entirely be considered 100% accurate- or to the contrary, flatly dismissed as "garbage" as some claim.

      It is certainly a valid discourse to have. There is no such thing as perfect science or perfect skepticism. The only thing I can definitively say based on the most up-to-date evidence is that we don't know exactly what is happening now (or going to in the future) and who/what is the cause. We could be in for another paradigm shift with respect to our understanding of humanity's effect on the natural climate- but we don't know. Nobody really knows. We've got data, we've got people interpreting it, and we've got people who believe the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution (admittedly myself), while others prefer to believe something different.

      I apologize for the long-winded post, but I hope you are able to see some merit in my position regardless of whether or not you agree.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15

    • While I appreciate Algore's bankster carbon-trading thievery and his authoritarian political abuse of public office (say what you like about Dubbya, but he prevented that bloated sack of filth from sliming into the Oval Office, didn't he?), I think he's too perfectly typical of the lying, cheating, scientifically illiterate "mainstream" of the man-made catastrophic climate change fraud ever to escape appropriate attention.

      Like Anthony Weiner for the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, used to be "Democratic," but then they enacted Obamacare over the enraged opposition of their own core constituencies last year), Algore is the poster boy for the AGW fraud. He is everything los warmistas have ever been and ever will be, out there in public - evading debate, of course - stinking up the joint.

      As for "the best science at the moment" (as if Cameron, the flaming idiot, would know "science" of any kind), the key to the whole putative mechanism of anthropogenic global climate warming - according to the conjecture that flaming idiots and flagrant liars like Cameron keep trying desperately to peddle - goes like this:

      The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links, ALL of which must be true in order for this preposterous contention to be accepted :

      (1) We humans are raising the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with our emissions.

      (2) Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the direct warming effect of the man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide (aCO2).

      (3) The Earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, including feedback mechanisms. These feedback effects warm the planet further, approximately tripling the direct warming effect.

      Remember, ALL of these assertions must be true for man-made global warming to constitute a danger. If one of them fails, the whole proposition fails.

      And one of them fails.

      There's plenty of evidence supporting (1) and (2), and I can't think of anyone literate in the sciences who disputes those statements. Radioisotope analysis of aCO2 spots it readily and reliably, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 was confirmed in an experiment conducted with a real greenhouse back in the 19th Century.

      But assertion (3) is wrong. Oh, boy, is it wrong.

      In the AGW caliphate's much-touted computer climate models, amplifying feedback is claimed to account for approximately two-thirds of the warming they say has happened or will happen.

      Not that it really has happened the way they've been selling this fraud. What little warming we've seen in the three hundred-plus years since the Little Ice Age began to peter out (about 1700) and finally ended (about 1850) has for the greatest part antedated the onset of significant man-made contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels. This is why AGW caliphate has striven so conscientiously to make the last thousand years' worth of temperature records conform to their "hockey stick" graph by doctoring the data.

      Without that "big push" feedback in assertion (3), there can only be very mild warming due to human CO2 emissions, and there is no cause at all for any kind of AGW alarm.

      There is NO objectively verified evidence for the amplifying feedback assumed - remember that word: "assumed" - in the AGW alarmists' computer climate models. None.

      But they built that assumption into their computer simulations of the Earth's climate anyway.

      What do you call a "scientist" who can't be bothered to get the objective evidence before he makes unsupported assumptions and then starts howling about climate catastrophe? How about one who keeps carping about how "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts"?

      Well, the AGW fraudsters haven't got any facts about what they claim to be forcing factors beyond carbon dioxide's rather mild greenhouse gas effect.

      When responsible, conscientious, properly skeptical scientists have said - over and over again - that there is no evidence for man-made global warming, most often they're referring to THIS lack of evidence, this failure to demonstrate that these amplifying feedbacks have happened or ever could happen.

      If there WERE evidence for the three-fold amplification effect that the feedbacks in assertion (3) are supposed to impart, you'd think that even a flaming idiot like Cameron would've heard about them, wouldn't you?

      But, no. The only thing the AGW "climate scientists" do is blank out when we get to that little sticking point, and start making handwaves over their computers, showing us their really expensive climate models. Aren't they cool? Don't they make pretty colors? And that "hockey stick" graph! How terrifying is that, right?

      Look, folks. Those climate models are nothing more than computerized calculations. Evidence? Gawd. By the same token, then, my ten-year-old grandson's hours and hours of zombie-like video game playing has earned him a NASCAR trophy.

      Computer climate models are NOT evidence.

      The credentialed charlatans who make up "the climate realm" - and the chittering root weevils of the media, not to forget the bloated banksters and the pustulent politicians - only talk about (1) and (2), but never, EVER, about (3).

      That's cause they've got nothing to support (3), and without (3), they've got nothing at all. The big man-made climate change hoo-raw goes *pfft!*

      The effects of climate feedback mechanisms give us THE crucial question in climate science, and it's this question that flaming idiots like Cameron squeal and scramble and sweat furiously to evade.

      Global warming? Sure. Global cooling, too. But how MUCH of either?

      If the answer to the global warming question is "Not much, so don't worry about it," then the whole garbage can full of "reduce your carbon footprint" bushwah goes out the window.

      For further reading, UEBERNERD, Joanne Nova has put together some pretty good introductory materials, and I can recommend them to you:

      (1) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

      (2) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

      ...and for something on the corrosive influence of highly political government funding (condemned by Dr. Ron Paul for decades):

      (3) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

      (4) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf

      I do NOT apologize for the length of this post. Leaving a flaming, "Liberal" fascist idiot like Cameron loose to pervert the purpose of this forum would constitute the neglect of a public health hazard, and the canons of the medical profession don't condone that kind of indifference.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10

      • Yeah, I'm sure Dr. Paul would really be proud of one of his supporters calling someone with a dissenting point of view a "flaming idiot." And a "liberal fascist?" You must have one chromosome too many.

        You still are completely close-minded to the idea that atmospheric co2 levels MAY have become a forcing mechanism due to human industrial activity: meaning that co2 lag cannot be held as proof. Although population and co2 levels aren't necessarily correlated (although I'm willing to guess they might be), co2 levels HAVE risen from 280 to nearly 380 ppm alongside a human population that has risen from roughly 500 million to over 6.5 billion. Co2 as a greenhouse gas is a matter of physics. As even YOU have stated in your assertions, (1) man has caused an increase in co2, and (2) co2 levels cause the surface temp of the Earth to rise. Even I would have a problem with number 3 because WE DON'T KNOW how much of a rise in temperature anthropogenic co2 has caused!

        Jeesus H Christopher!! My problem with you're assertions all along are the fact you are taking an absolutist stand that completely dismisses AGW as even a remote possibility! If you think AGW hinges on co2 "tripling" the warming effect because of feedback effects, you're awfully mistaken. Even if doubling co2 levels (100% for instance) caused a global average temperature increase of an insignificant 1/2 degree Fahrenheit, AGW would exist.

        My other problem is with you calling it all a fraud because of the "climategate" emails. If you've ever held a job before, and I'm sure you have, you should know what shop talk is. If you can seriously say with 100% certainty that those emails constituted a serious fraud among the "climate cabal" or whatever you want to call it, you must be a damn psychic. Based on your assumptions about me, I'd say you're likely light years off the mark there.

        I don't care how old and married you are. It doesn't make you right. You're not perfect, so quit acting like you are. You're fallible just like everyone else. I bet you're incapable of admitting you MIGHT be wrong.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11

      • Cameron is all upset that accurate diagnosis of his warmist fraudulence marks him correctly as a "Liberal" fascist flaming idiot. Shucks, but ONLY "Liberal" fascist flaming idiots still push the man-made global climate change contention in the wake of the Climategate exposure of "the climate scene." That confirmatory evidence made it impossible for any honest person to fall for the illusion that the "climatology" caliphate hasn't been corrupt from the first days of this preposterous incompetently formulated bogosity.

        The motives of this Cameron specimen are clearly political - and that political impetus is authoritarian. If Dr. Paul does not explicitly call "Liberal" fascist flaming idiots precisely what they are (and Cameron is), it's because Dr. Paul is a practicing politician, and has to function within the hypocrisies of that sordid profession. Me? I'm just a country GP. Cameron isn't my patient, but rather a predatory enemy of the public peace, and therefore a threat to my patients. What reason could I possibly have to withhold full and conscientious attention to his flaming idiot "Liberal" fascist machinations against the individual human rights of innocent people?

        Like most other "Liberal" fascists, Cameron is trying to use a tiny morsel of truth to trick readers into believing his Big Lie. It's a time-honored fascist tactic, right?

        Cameron maunders: about "...the idea that atmospheric co2 levels MAY have become a forcing mechanism due to human industrial activity..." while evading address of the critical link (3) in the dead-from-the-moment-of-conception AGW hypothesis by writing:

        "...WE DON’T KNOW how much of a rise in temperature anthropogenic co2 has caused!"

        What "WE," Cameron? You might not know (I don't think Joe Romm is pushing that information to his flaming idiot disciples like Cameron), but honest climate scientists - mostly atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, physical chemists, folks like that - have been able to arrive at reliable estimates of the radiative forcing effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) - the direct effect - for some decades now, and they've been able to derive proof and refinement of the accuracy of those estimates from observational evidence, chiefly provided by the increasing number and quality of instruments on orbiting satellite platforms.

        But Cameron is a flaming idiot, and knows nothing about these advances in theory and instrumentation. He's defending a "Liberal" fascist excuse for pillaging his neighbors, starving Third-World peasants to death, and subordinating all Americans to transnational progressivism. Accurate and discriminate instrumental evidence disproving the preposterous bogosity of the AGW contention is something Cameron doesn't want any of his prospective victims to learn about, and he hasn't yet gotten his talking points about these inconvenient truths from his masters of "Liberal" fascist propaganda.

        Let's get it clear, folks. I'm a country GP. I have only a few advantages over Cameron. One of them, of course, is that I value, respect, and defend individual human rights while Cameron is bent upon their violation. Apart from that, I've got an undergraduate degree in Biology, which means that I had to satisfactorily complete a number of courses in the other "hard" sciences too, chiefly chemistry but also physics. Then I went to medical school, with lots more in the way of the "hard" sciences as well as training in clinical medicine. In the course of practicing my profession, I got some experience in academic publications, so I've participated (from both sides) in the peer review process by which scientific literature gets published. I'm not a climatologist, but I know the principles of scientific method, and I've seen in many cases how fraud can be made to fake the seeming of scientific validity.

        That kind of thing happens a lot in medicine, you should know. The pharmaceuticals companies are very good at it, and there are plenty of earnest but corrupt clinical investigators, hungering for recognition (and government grant money), who build their notoriety on unspeakable lies. Look up "Andrew Wakefield" and "autism" for a recent example.

        Medical doctors have to be on our guard about this all the time, and so we're trained to maintain good "bullpuckey detectors" when it comes to claims which seem - on their face - to be exceptional.

        From the very start - in the years between 1979 and 1981 - the current "man-made climate change" contention has been QUITE exceptional. Bloody preposterous, in fact.

        Now, I've already mentioned how the test of any scientific concept - contention, hypothesis, theory, or law - resides in its ability to predict things that happen in the real world. Correlation with reality tests every speculative explanation of causality, and the AGW fraudsters of "the climate scene" have been failing this test - repeatedly, spectacularly, fatally - ever since their con game began.

        Given the three absolutely NECESSARY elements of the man-made global warming contention, and the fact that the preponderance of the planetary warming these incompetent pseudoscientists of "the climate scene" have - without objective evidence or validation of their computer climate model programs - claimed can or will happen is supposed to come from positive feedback mechanisms triggered by the greenhouse gas effect of aCO2, the failure of the "Liberal" fascist warming-pushers like Cameron to demonstrate those feedback effects means that there is no proof that adverse man-made global warming has occurred, will occur, or can occur.

        What we read from Cameron in his "precautionary principle" coulda-woulda-mighta flaming idiocy is merely this:

        "Even if doubling co2 levels (100% for instance) caused a global average temperature increase of an insignificant 1/2 degree Fahrenheit, AGW would exist."

        Yep. Not, of course, that this insignificant half-a-degree (Fahrenheit, not Centigrade) direct-effect global temperature increase over the next century and more would impose upon the biosphere any kind of adverse impact, mind you.

        Heck, that same very small, very steady increase in global temperature levels has been going on since the Little Ice Age began to end, circa 1700, and we still haven't any prospect within the next couple of centuries of seeing global temperatures reaching the levels prevailing in either the Roman Warm or the Medieval Warm climate optimums, which were periods of great prosperity for the human race.

        So precisely how is man-made carbon dioxide really influencing the Earth's climate?

        Well, Cameron - the flaming idiot - has not even the least approximation of an idea. Honest climate scientists have been speaking about this for the past generation, but "the climate scene" (by way of their perversion of peer review and their corrupt influence on research funding) have striven to choke out and suppress the work of honest climate scientists.

        And don'tcha just love Cameron's "Liberal" fascist formulaic handwave over the Climategate e-mails (notice that he ignores the cooked database information and the incompetent "hockey stick" graphing climate model computer programming, which make up the bulk of the FOIA2009.zip archive we can still find on the Internet today) as "shop talk."

        Ever wonder if Cameron had ever held a job - much less practiced a profession - in which the standards of conduct included proper regard for the character of all communications related thereunto? What the C.R.U. e-mail correspondences revealed - in addition to the confirmation of hideous corruption in "the climate scene" - is that these AGW fraudsters are simply too doggone STUPID to avoid incriminating themselves.

        Some "scientists" these idiots are. Even a country GP (like me) knows that unencrypted e-mail correspondence is the equivalent of scribbling a note on a scrap of paper, folding it once, and then tacking it to a corkboard in the corridor. Anybody who wants to take the trouble of unpinning it and unfolding it can read it, and it can be photocopied easily for large numbers of people to read.

        Physicians are taught (and have the lesson driven home every day of their professional careers) that you've got to be circumspect in anything you commit to any permanent medium, whether it be a patient's chart, a letter written on a patient's behalf to an employer, or the recording of your presentation at a CME activity. Once it goes down on your "permanent record," it's there forever.

        E-mail is treated in precisely the same way. As any doctor who's participated in risk reduction classes designed to mitigate vulnerability to professional liability lawsuits learns that e-mail records never go away - and they're eminently discoverable by members of the plaintiff's bar.

        The C.R.U. correspondents of "the climate scene" never twigged to that - until all that information from the University of East Anglia (which Professor Jones criminally violated the United Kingdom's freedom of information statutes to withhold from people critical of his scientific fraud) got posted on the 'Net.

        Kinda why that digital archive got named "FOIA2009.zip," y'know.

        Those e-mails didn't so much constitute "a serious fraud" as they served to confirm that what might otherwise have been taken to be a serious but honest error on the part of the "climatology" caliphate WAS, in truth, a helluva "serious fraud," concerted deliberately to deceive and therefore to build a scheme whereby billions of dollars (and other currency units) had been allocated by governments to fund "research" which was predicated upon knowing falsehoods uttered by the credentialed charlatans making up "the climate scene."

        Being an old married man with children and grandchildren merely explains some of my motivation for opposing the anthropogenic global warming fraud, and contesting "Liberal" fascist flaming idiot like Cameron in this venue.

        What makes me right on this issue is merely that I know (and can explain) what makes Cameron wrong.

        Not difficult. Cameron is, after all, a flaming idiot.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11

      • @Tucci78; Enough of the "flaming" war. Not only is it getting boring and not helping us figure-out what is going on, it makes it look like the whole RP campaign is losing traction.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

        • Fluidly Unsure wants (hoo-boy!) "civility" in the address of the flaming idiots and "Liberal" fascist thugs who dwell in this forum to push the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud as if it were a legitimate scientific conjecture and basis for public policy.

          Not gonna happen. I'm delighted to address the substance of this issue. I've done so, have I not? After all, it's the substantive failings of the AGW bogosity which make it bogus from a scientific perspective.

          The political motivations of those pushing the AGW fraud, however, are also subjects for reasoned critical evaluation, and these motivations are indisputably hateful. They are predatory, violative of individual human rights, and despicable.

          I despise them. You don't?

          Well, Fluidly Unsure, let's try to get some surety in that. What's your opinion on the AGW fraud and the thieving thugs who're trying to foist this on their neighbors as an excuse to pillage them?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8

          • If you have a solid argument, it isn't necessary to attack your opponents. Your argument should stand up on its own, as should mine. Ad hominem, right? Ahh, but you've deemed that subjective too. It's not a fallacy when you attack other's characters, but it is when others do. That is hypocrisy plain and simple.

            You may indeed have a good argument, but you've squandered the opportunity to have a friendly debate by resorting to vicious attacks against me and everyone else you deem "flaming idiots," "theiving thugs," "AGW fraudsters," "liberal fascits," etc. Then again, you've been doing that for years. Just run a Google search on "Tucci78" and you'll find countless comments on right-of-center fora where you've been making the same argument and related attacks on those who reason that AGW is even a possibility.

            "The political motivations of those pushing the AGW fraud, however, are also subjects for reasoned critical evaluation, and these motivations are indisputably hateful. They are predatory, violative of individual human rights, and despicable.

            I despise them. You don’t?"

            Indisputably hateful? Predatory? Despicable? That is purely your opinion, a precariously hasty generalization, and not at all relevant to the debate at hand. Linking those suppositions to your theory that AGW is a flat-out fraud fits the definition of an ad hominem fallacy. If you can prove those character traits you speak of to apply to every person that thinks AGW exists, you might have something- but good luck with that.

            Speaking for myself, I think you're full of s***.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

          • The indisputably hateful, predatory, and despicable flaming idiot, Cameron, flashes his "Liberal" fascist nates in this forum yet again, claiming that "If you have a solid argument, it isn’t necessary to attack your opponents."

            What "attack," Cameron? It's just accurate diagnosis. What, you think that calling you precisely what you are, reliably inferring your motives - sordid and vicious and evil as they are - is some kind of "attack"?

            Well, shucks. The shoe certainly fits, doesn't it?

            In public discourse such as this, the objective is NOT to win flaming idiots like you, Cameron, over to the cause of individual human rights. You're already committed to the aggressive violation of your fellow Americans' rights to life, to liberty, and to property.

            Especially property. You want to "spread the wealth around" - other people's wealth, of course, not whatever you've gotten for your own nasty little self - don'tcha?

            This warmista "Liberal" fascist bullpuckey of yours about how my additional observations of your own personal moral putridity has in any way "squandered the opportunity to have a friendly debate" presumes mistakenly that anything like "debate" has ever been intended by flim-flam fraudsters like you. Were you in any way (in the least teensy trace) honest about engaging in a discussion centered upon the factual basis of the AGW contention, you would have demonstrated it by now.

            Heck, you would've found something written by meteorologist Anthony Watts to support your contention that his work on this subject is "...largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false," meaning that you - Cameron - LIED when you wrote that you "...have read plenty of Watts’ material."

            Falsus in unum, Cameron, falsus in bloody omnibus.

            With it well established that you're a liar as well as a flaming idiot and a "Liberal" fascist (they do kinda go together, don't they?), and with the understanding that no reader here can even trust you when you write about "Speaking for [your]self," I wouldn't even say that you're full of feces.

            Fecal matter can be usefully composted to produce fertilizer, and there's nothing of you or from you, Cameron, I'd rely upon not to poison the ground on which it's spread.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

          • To make an accurate diagnosis, you need to know the person. You don't know me, so you're making horrendously dubious and hateful assumptions about me based on the fact I have, in the past, read plenty of Anthony Watts' postings. I regularly received them through a RSS feed on my mobile. There was nothing I read of his that couldn't be countered- which is normally the case in the realm of science. I'm sorry, but your hero Watts is just as fallible as the "climategate" scientists. Perhaps I went a bit far in calling it "cobbled together pseudoscience"- but no further than you calling AGW a fraud and those who consider the possibility of its existence "flaming idiots." Watts himself made an erroneous claim that the climate monitoring stations were feeding scientists flawed readings, when the stations he himself deemed "best" in terms of accuracy showed no statistically significant difference from the sum total of observations of the entire system. See your hypocrisy? I'm guessing no.

            You chose to dismiss the evidence I linked to that disproves Anthony Watts' "hockeystick killer" assumption- which is that because co2 historically has lagged global average temperatures, co2 cannot be a driver of climate- that it is purely feedback and not forcing. That is a legitimate rebuttal, no? Sorry I even asked because I already know your absolutist answer.

            Now have I gone on to push "C"AGW alarmism by proclaiming the government needs to step in to save us all? NO. I have NOT. You've chalked me up as an extreme-leftist fascist (an oxymoron by the way) and have since gone on to attack my character without any basis in reality- all under the cowardly shield of internet anonymity. Again, that says much more about yourself and those of your ilk than it does about me. Because I've stood up to your AGW fraud assumption (a great leap of faith), you've done nothing but lash out at me viciously and needlessly.

            I am not entirely a libertarian, a liberal, or a conservative. I consider myself an independent moderate with views that fall into each one of those categories- just like the vast majority of Americans.

            So no, you're "diagnosis" is not accurate. It is incredibly biased, rude, inaccurate, hateful, and despicable. You've been lying about me with out even knowing me.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • @Tuccii, for the sake of our argument, get off your high horse and treat your opponents with the respect you expect from them. Dirty fighting isn't what we need now, save it in case we need it later. By alienating people who don't agree with you 100% you've done more for the pro-ACC argument than Cameron every will.

            @Cameron, didn't you call people idiots for not accepting the word of the Lord of the house of academia? Not as much hate as Tucci is showing, but enough to irritate people like I'll bet you are irritated by Tucci.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

          • @ Fluidly- If I ever did reflexively call anyone an idiot for disagreeing with my point of view, I sincerely apologize for it. I can't remember saying that, but if I did even infer that, I fully accept any due criticism for it. However, I do disagree with this talk of academia being a big joke, or worse- a conspiracy to make Al Gore rich, among other accusations of nefarious actions by environmentalists.

            The climategate emails have been investigated my multiple sources and have been determined to show no wrongdoing. The investigating parties are mentioned in a release by the Republican Leadership Network. There is also a post by MediaMatters (I know they are considered "liberal") that does concisely address the major "smoking gun" arguments made by those who believe AGW is a fraud.

            http://www.republicanleadershipnetwork.com/post/10

            http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

          • *imply, not infer. Apologies.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

          • Fluidly Unsure thinks I'm on some kind of "high horse" in the way I'm addressing the political advocates of the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) fraud.

            Sheesh. We've gotten from Cameron (who's now given up pushing the fraud itself and is now trying in desperation to peddle the cover-ups conducted to "investigate" the Climategate exposure of "the climate scene" fraudsters) nothing but arrogant dismissal of sound scientific skepticism, and I'm not supposed to stomp this weasel every chance I get?

            As I've said, hammering critters like Cameron is a public health necessity. Human poverty - especially when it comes to the degradation of quality-of-life essentials like adequate nutrition, safely potable water, the ability to afford housing, and the availability of medical care - is utterly deadly. The machinations of the ACC fraud (and that means Cameron's efforts in this venue) are devised for no purpose other than to suppress those economic activities which most widely and effectively ameliorate human poverty.

            Everything Cameron's been doing in this forum, and by extension everything los warmistas have been doing to use the man-made global warming conjecture - a preposterous bogosity from the outset, more than thirty years ago - to pillage their neighbors by way of "carbon offsets" and "carbon taxes" and "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy" (the last two requiring government subsidies extracted at gunpoint from those same neighbors) has the direct and indirect effect of increasing human poverty.

            I'm getting up on my "high horse" in making this explicit? Cameron - to name only one example of those propagandizing for this astonishing perversion of the seeming of science - is evil. He knows it, and hates the living daylights out of the fact that I've discerned it and I'm not letting a spurious "politeness" get in the way of declaiming it.

            Fortunately, while evil is commonly cunning, it ain't very smart. Cameron is a flaming idiot as well as a flagrant liar and predatory enemy of human rights. His stupidity shows up (yet again) in his blithering about how:

            "The climategate emails have been investigated [by] multiple sources and have been determined to show no wrongdoing."

            Such bullpuckey. Those frantic cover-ups perpetrated last year by Pennsylvania State University and the IPCC and the University of East Anglia (Sir Muir Russell et alia in the U.K.) were conducted entirely by advocates of the AGW contention, people deeply invested in the preservation of both the fraud itself and and the organizational ability of the taxpayer-funded institutions they represented to continue pushing the fraud.

            Were any of these "inquiries" intended genuinely to examine the full content of the Climategate information archive - of which the C.R.U. correspondents' e-mails were only the smallest of the three major moieties - they would have been conducted by scientists who had by late 2009 already expressed their skepticism about both the conjecture itself and the methods of "the climate scene" Cameron wants us to worship uncritically and without regard for their perfidious conduct in the perversion of academic peer review and the other ways they maliciously effected the suppression of contrarian research and publication.

            Cameron's "investigated [by] multiple sources" bushwah is nothing more or less than reliance on wholly partisan whitewashes. The reader has got to consider for himself just how much pure CONTEMPT this warmista is showing right now for everyone visiting this site in this latest effort to push another piece of the AGW Big Lie.

            Cameron seems to think that anybody who has any familiarity with the scientific method generally (and with the vicious snakepit of "academia" especially) is going to buy this latest line of his crap.

            Wotta flaming idiot....

            I haven't in truth "alienated" anybody, Fluidly. I've briskly (and merrily) whacked at Cameron in this virtual exchange of ideas - well, my ideas and Cameron's lies - to establish clearly and vividly the facts of the matter. Critically important among these facts is the pure, unalloyed, smarming evil of the AGW fraudsters like Cameron.

            You don't like that, Fluidly? Jeez, don't you believe in the reality of evil? If the history of the human race teaches nothing else, that particular lesson gets hammered home again and again and again. You don't appreciate and understand the nature of evil yet?

            Well, stick around and keep reading Cameron. He doesn't know doo-dah about the science of the matter, but he's the poster boy for "evil" in the politics of the AGW fraud.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

          • @Tucci; You and I both disagree with Cameron. However, you think Cameron is intentionally being evil, I think he is innocently wrong. He sounds sincere and well intended- nothing evil here. The issue deserves a respectful debate, not a flame war. I do understand evil but think we need to avoid conflicts if at all possible but be ready to kick our opponents in the face if necessary. I just don't think your timing is right.

            @Cameron; I should have addressed the group that is mouthing a sentiment similar to yours. They have tried to insult the "deniers" intelligence (because we accept the word of lay people) and sincerity (because funding comes from the private sector). For some reason, in my mind you've become a figure-head of the pro-ACC arguments here.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

          • No, Fluidly, the inference that cannot be denied is that Cameron - the flaming idiot - is infesting this forum with malign intent.

            Like you, I was prepared to give him (her?) the benefit of the doubt, to allow for honest ignorance instead of plain old "Liberal" fascist evil, but again and again and again this advocate of fraud has refused (and continued to refuse) well-reasoned and sourced argument serving to debunk the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture, obviously retailing the fallacious talking points "cooked" for online warmistas by the fraudster propagandists spewing all over the 'Net.

            "SkepticalScience" indeed. Batpuckey.

            Had we a signed, sworn attestation out of Cameron that he's pushing the AGW fraud in this virtual venue for political reasons, and that those reasons are one hundred percent inimical to the political purposes which Dr. Ron Paul seeks to fulfill, it couldn't be more obvious.

            The "man-made climate change" issue for Cameron and his sputniki has not been - and will never be - a matter of legitimate scientific inquiry, but rather an element in the ongoing campaign of the political left to violate the individual human rights of their neighbors.

            That's the very definition of "evil" in my book. I'm not particularly religious, and I cannot claim any reliable insight into the Will of God, so I'm not going to use theological metrics to define "evil," Fluidly. But if somebody is working to violate the rights of the individual human being to life, to liberty, and to property - and Cameron's right there with that - then he's evil.

            Might as well say so.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

          • Stefan C. Kosikowski

            Liberal fascist is an oxymoron!

            Fascists don't proscribe to the philosophy of liberty, which clearly defines what a liberal is... not the lies from the Elite and the ignoramouses who are their mouth-pieces.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  11. PS: As a foreigner I consider dr.Ron Paul as a typical exponent of classic American aristocracy -he reminds me of eminent teachers I had in my overseas study years - I am glad he is running despite his age. Sort of an integer "conscience"of American political stands over the years in de midst of a tornado of madness. I think chances that he will elected are very slim but what has to be done has to be done. Go dr.Paul.
    Maybe I will live long enough to see his son ascend to the Presidency one day.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

    • UEBERNERD, your post has precisely...what?...to do with the subject of anthropogenic global warming?

      But as long as we're here.... An OB/GYN guy (I've only personally encountered Dr. Paul once, at a convention a bunch of years ago) who's spent several decades advocating the subordination of the federal government to strict rule of law under the U.S. Constitution is somehow supposed to be "a typical exponent of classic American aristocracy" in your eyes?

      Hm. Some construe of the word "aristocracy" with which I'm not familiar, obviously.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

      • Tucci: I wrote another post -more technical- on global warming, bit it did not get through for some reason. So I wrote the one that was posted to compliment dr.Ron Paul anyways.
        The AGW-discussion is a religious and not a scientific debate.I suspect the majority of alarmists to question Darwinic species evolution , the Big Bang, etc.etc. as well in medieval tradition. A laconic one-liner in Amsterdam bars on AGW goes like this:

        "When the sky falls down, we will all have a blue hat".

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  12. Tucci, you may be aware of Oreskes analysis of all peer-reviewed articles with the term climate change, where out of the 900+ articles, 75% supported the theory that human emissions are the cause of the recent climate change, while 25% studied climate change, but not the cause of the recent climate change.

    Not one peer-reviewed article supported any contrary theories. Not one.

    Now I accept that there may be a conspiracy in that articles proving the contrarion position are being witheld by editors (even from the peer-reviewed geology journals which may be pro-mining), and the editors have been vigilant enough in not even allowing one through!

    So where is this research that didn't make the peer-reviewed journals? Wouldn't the disgrunted authors at least publish it on the web?

    Wouldn't the government representatives reviewing the draft IPCC reports, the ones from the oil producers like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,UAE, Iran, etc. use this research to support their governments' best interests. Wouldn't they have come armed with this research to try and disprove the theory? They did not, for they were part of the team that unanimously agreed to release the report!

    The only logical conclusion I can make is that Oreskes finding is valid, there is no scientific support for any of the contrarion theories (published in peer-reviewed journals or not).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

    • Philip, what does the phrase "perversion of peer review" mean to you? How about "pal review"?

      The "contrarion theories" have been appearing on the Web for many years as the result of having been denied promulgation in scientific conferences and academic journals from which such works have been blocked over the past several decades.

      When a cadre of like-minded people (the word "conspirators" does seem to fit, doesn't it?) take control of both the editorial positions and the reviewing functions of the scientific literature in a particular discipline, and coordinate the promulgation of their agreed-upon messaging with the exclusion of discourse which disproves that message, there is not only a failure of the error-checking mechanism which the scientific method depends upon but also the diversion of manpower and material away from such "contrarion theories."

      It should come as no surprise to you that a great many of the scientists who have offered the sharpest criticism of the AGW orthodoxy have been retired from academic positions, or have had careers in industry instead of academe. I had mentioned Dr. Jeff Glassman earlier. Take a look at his Web site (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/), or search the Web for comments he's offered on climate-related scientific blogs like Dr. Judith Curry's "Climate Etc." (http://judithcurry.com/).

      The retired academics have no further need of research grants, and can speak their minds without the prospect of being frozen out of the funding required to survive in the "publish or perish" environment the professoriate. Similarly, look to those physicists, statisticians, and other researchers who do NOT have a proximal or distal pecuniary interest in the perpetuation and expansion of the "global warming" duplicity. There have been a generous plenty of people willing to stick a fork in this platterful of rotten eggs and remark on the stench of sulfur and decay.

      These are, of course, the kinds of people who are frozen out of "climatology" periodicals and scientific conferences. They don't hold the right union cards, or are otherwise glibly dismissed as disqualified.

      As for "the government representatives reviewing the draft IPCC reports," just what is it that you don't understand about the bureaucratic imperative?

      And you think that the oil-producing kleptocracies of the Middle East don't know full well that the industrial nations' need for their petroleum cannot abate? The only real effect of the "global warming" hooey will be to increase the prices that the OPEC countries can charge their customers. They could object to this?

      The only thing that's "valid" about Oreskes' findings is the evidence that the discussion of "contrary theories" - genuine challenges to the AGW orthodoxy - has been VERY effectively frozen out by the warmist cabal.

      Well, hell. They've had thirty solid years to assert that censoring control.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      • Tucci, I accept that it may be more pal-reviewed rather than peer-reviewed, but what about the pro-mining peer-reviewed journals? Why aren't the contrarion studies showing up there?

        Btw, contrarion theories have been everywhere on the web, but where are the actual studies? Where are these studies that have followed the scientific method to disprove the theory?

        And are you essentially saying that the oil-producing countries' did not put forward any contrarion studies to refute the IPCC findings because they knew we would just continue to use their oil? That they didn't see the example of Europe which has reduced its reliance on middle east oil by over 20% as a threat?

        Then why did they go to all the effort of forcing the IPCC to change the statement that the likelihood that human emissions are causing the current climate change is 99% (as the draft report stated) down to 90% before they would approve its release?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

        • Philip, theoretical and experimental work on "contrary theories" debunking the AGW contention have had to be predicated - quite properly - on examinations of the observational data and the methods of analysis used by the warmist priesthood to support their extraordinary assertions to the effect that human emissions of carbon dioxide have been THE driver of global climate change since about 1850.

          When dealing with observational multidecadal observational data, access to the numbers is required both to support a hypothetical contention AND to determine whether that contention can be disproven, and the principal surface temperature datasets have been - for the past couple of decades - firmly under the control of the C.R.U. correspondents so thoroughly exposed in the Climategate "FOIA2009.zip" archive.

          Contrarian climate scientists have had to put in freedom of information act (FOIA) requests for access to these databases, which have been aggregated by government agencies at public expense, and the warmist gatekeepers controlling these information aggregates have stonewalled such requests, often in ways that have been undeniably criminal. See Prof. Jones of the C.R.U. An unbelievably short (eighteen months) statute of limitations is all that kept him from being charged with a criminal offense under the UK law.

          The way real science works is that when an investigator gathers evidence to test a hypothetical assertion, he digests that information, reports it, and then makes all of his data available to anyone who wants to check his methods.

          The response of the honest scientist when asked for such data is always "Here y'go."

          Only somebody with something to hide ever stonewalls.

          The other factor at work over the past thirty years is that getting funding for any kind of research is difficult. If the prevailing tendency is to find the AGW conjecture "sexy," the contrarian is doubly damned. First, he is writing his research grant applications with clear intention to seek out information which tests the AGW contention possibly to debunk it. Despite the fact that this is what a scientist is SUPPOSED to do, this threatens many rice bowls.

          Try submitting a federal or state government grant application for research, the results to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, about the environmental and health hazards (including potentially dangerous ionizing radiation in ash residues) associated with coal-fired power generation while Senator Robert C. Byrd was still alive.

          Second, bear in mind that the AGW contention has had a pretty solid thirty years to set and take hold in academic departments all over the developed world. There are senior people who have invested their whole professional lives in this preposterous bogosity. There's no way that they're going to give traction to any graduate student or aspiring postdoctoral fellow who shows any indication of busting their rice bowls.

          Those who aspire to tenure-track positions understand full well that the route to success does NOT lie through bold and daring investigation which looks to have a good prospect of proving that your department chief has been extolling the quality and fit of the Emperor's New Clothes for the past couple of decades.

          Counting upon "the climate realm" to police itself honestly is flaming idiocy.

          As for "the oil-producing countries" and modifications of the IPCC ukases, I really haven't taken the trouble to look into how the OPEC governments concerned themselves with the Assessment Reports and other ukases of this agency. I have simply inferred that as long as the oil-producing nations get the money they desire to fund what they consider high-priority objectives, it doesn't matter what the European countries do in maintaining or reducing their demand for petroleum products, particularly in light of growing demand in other markets, notably Communist China and India.

          Oil is a fungible commodity, and anyone who thinks that the garbage output of the IPCC matters one little bit to the OPEC governments needs to get a look at spot prices on the global market,which have not correlated to any strength with European demand.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

          • Hence you simply dismiss the fact that the best and brightest of the OPEC nations didn't bother putting forward contrarion studies because they didn't care about a potential 20% reduction in demand from key markets (and potentially much greater as the Europeans are aiming for an 80% reduction by 2050)?

            I'm sorry, but if I said to my CEO that we're looking at a significant reduction in demand in a significant market, he would expect me to respond.

            For all your assertions of a conspiracy, I find it hard to believe that this was not taken up by the OPEC representatives if there was any truth to it (and this is not just one representative, we're talking about each and every of the 12 reps of the 12 nations not caring).

            And I find it hard to believe that they didn't care as they did push to have the probability statement modified down.

            So if the only logical conclusion that can be made is that they did care, that they needed to fight the threat of a response to climate change, why did these best and brightest of OPEC fail to use your evidence, and in the end agreed to the release of the IPCC report?

            Maybe because your evidence was considered flawed even by OPEC?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

          • Philip, I "dismiss" the OPEC nations' conduct with regard to infighting against the IPCC reports and the Kyoto Protocol because although in 1997 "Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others [had] emphasized the existence of scientific uncertainty and argued that the convention process should move forward cautiously," the people running these governments have largely determined that their best strategy was to avoid direct rebuttal of "the science" and instead work the UN machinery for monetary compensation from the industrial West. See:

            1) http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/SurajeDessai/Will_OPEC_lose_from_the_Kyoto_Protocol.pdf

            2) The November 2005 report, *OPEC and Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities* (available in PDF online)

            3) http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/conferences/climate_policies/working_papers/HaurieOpec.pdf

            IPCC's AR4 "...concludes that any OPEC response will have a modest effect on the loss of wealth to oil producers and the level on emission permit prices in mitigating regions," and in the last of these three references (2008), we read:

            "OPECs exports are relatively insensitive to whether or not the world adopts a strict climate policy (the oil production is reduced in non-OPEC countries in the climate scenario), but OPECs pro ts are lower in the Climate scenario. Thus, based on oil pro ts alone, OPEC may be reluctant to engage in a strict global emission reduction agreement. However, other considerations beside oil profits would come into play."

            So my inference regarding the lack of OPEC concern with European oil consumption in light of growing market demand in China and India more than compensating to keep spot oil prices in the global market high enough to provide satisfactory revenue for them does appear to be correct.

            If they lose in any way as the result of reduced Eurozone petrochemicals consumption, the AGW buy-in of the oil-producing and exporting countries is being purchased by compensatory guarantees devised to disarm their formal resistance to the potential of adverse macroeconomic consequences of the fraud.

            You got a better appreciation of this matter, Philip? Or are you sticking with "hard to believe" and "hard to believe" and an unsupported "only logical conclusion" and a great big "Maybe"?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

  13. Tucci, if this is about fraud and money, why do the climate scientists keep repeating that the science is essentially settled.

    Wouldn't they be saying that there is still a lot of uncertainty, and they need more grant money for further research to be more certain?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3

    • Philip, I'd suggest that you follow Anthony Watts' blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) for an active aggregating site on the subject of climatology and the character of the AGW contention. There's a bunch of work he and his friends have pulled together on this.

      Watts got into the subject because his observations gave him reason to doubt that the surface temperature monitoring stations distributed across these United States were accurately reflecting real-world climate conditions, with changes in these sites inducing a decided warming artifact - a bias rendering the supposed "global warming" information invalid. He started the surfacestations.org project, which I also recommend to you.

      Turns out that the land and ocean surface temperature measurement systems have a BOATLOAD of instrumental factors degrading their value well beyond the hypothetical limits of error in the vaunted "sophisticated" computer climate models upon which the AGW high priesthood have based their silly excuse for "science."

      Beyond "fraud and money," the catastrophic man-made climate change whoop-la also confers upon the degraded discipline of climatology a great deal of prestige and influence. What morally unsteady and intellectually dubious quasi-meteorologist could resist the temptation to achieve public significance by Chicken-Little-ing to the gullible public the sorts of "We're All Gonna Die!" hysteria upon which the eyeball-grabby mainstream media root weevils batten?

      Keep in mind always that the politicians - who control the sluices that pour taxpayer money into the feeding trough from which these porkers are grunting up their swill - want NO "uncertainty" about how awful and horrible this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will be.

      Remember outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's angry insistence that the debate is over, that the science is settled, and that anybody who treats the AGW contention as anything less than the received word of God is a heretic who must be burned at the stake?

      And need we mention Algore and all his bankster "carbon trading" buddies?

      So the "climatologists" whooping up CAGW stress in their grant applications no more "uncertainty" than the sort of message that they've gotta get millions of bucks to program their computers to model just how bad the consequences of evil man-made climate change is gonna be - unless, of course, we roll back industrial civilization to the same level obtaining circa 1632.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      • Anthony Watts is well known for attempting to sow distrust with regard to the reliability of the 1221 NOAA weather stations used to track temperatures across the US.

        The aggregated data from stations Watts HIMSELF considered "optimally located" or "best" were compared with the data from the 1221 total weather stations used by NOAA. The resulting trend in comparison was virtually identical, proving he was full of BS.

        If you're citing Watts as a reliable source, try again bud!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12

        • Cameron, you flaming idiot, Anthony Watts has demonstrated repeatedly and continuously that "distrust with regard to the reliability of the 1221 NOAA weather stations used to track temperatures across the US" is eminently justified.

          Have you BOTHERED to check the project's Web site (at http://www.surfacestations.org/), the 2009 preliminary report (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf), or the summaries of the accepted paper (accessible by way of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/), Cameron?

          Or are you still determined to do nothing but regurgitate the propaganda of the AGW fraudsters? Channeling Joe Romm, Cameron?

          ===
          "We found that the poor siting of a significant number of climate reference sites (USHCN) used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) to monitor surface air temperatures has led to inaccuracies and larger uncertainties in the analysis of multi-decadal surface temperature anomalies and trends than assumed by NCDC.

          "NCDC does recognize that this is an issue. In the past decade, NCDC has established a new network, the Climate Reference Network (CRN), to measure surface air temperatures within the United States going forward. According to our co-author Anthony Watts:

          “'The fact that NOAA itself has created a new replacement network, the Climate Reference Network, suggests that even they have realized the importance of addressing the uncertainty problem.'

          "The consequences of this poor siting on their analyses of multi-decadal trends and anomalies up to the present, however, has not been adequately examined by NCDC."

          (May 11, 2011)
          ===

          You got a citation to support your assertion that "The resulting trend in comparison was virtually identical, proving he was full of BS," Cameron, or are you just regurgitating your usual mess of feculence?

          In a comment on Watts' site, co-author Dr. John Nielson-Gammon writes:

          "[T]here are several warning flags raised by this study. First, station siting is indeed important for the maximum and minimum temperature measurements. Second, the adjustments are only partly correcting the temperature record. Third, since the adjustments use data from all surrounding stations, there’s the danger that the mean trends are dominated by data from the poorer stations. (Less than ten percent of the USHCN stations are sited well enough to be considered appropriate for climate trend measurements.) Finally, and perhaps most important, are we really so lucky that the rest of the world would also have its poorly-sited stations have erroneous maximum and minimum temperature trends that just happen to be equal and opposite to each other?"

          Just what's your incentive to dismiss "Watts as a reliable source," Cameron?

          Have you actually read anything he or his associates have written?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

          • Yet again the civility of these exchanges amazes me.

            Yes I have read plenty of Watts' material. It's largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.

            The climate reference network was put in place for redundancy. Of course such a benign explanation would never placate a conspiracy theorist such as yourself.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

          • Cameron, you just delight in dumping unsupported assertions out for everybody to see, don'tcha? You now claim to "...have read plenty of Watts’ material. It’s largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false."

            Okay. Cite something of his you've found to be "either irrelevant or false."

            If you've really "read plenty of Watts' material," you must have taken note of stuff he's written that you've determined to be "cobbled together pseudoscience," right?

            Hey, we're on the World Wide Web. There are uniform resource locator (URL) codes. Watts archives his stuff so it stays accessible online. You shouldn't have any trouble finding what you've referred to as "cobbled together pseudoscience," Cameron.

            Or are you just blowing it out your distalmost sphincter again?

            Ah, "biomass." More swamp gas from Cameron.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7

          • Anthony Watts is among others including the Cato Institute (hellooo Koch brothers!), Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Sen. Inhofe (a prolific federal oil subsidy defender AND anti-science extraordinaire), Prof. Lindzen (an ExxonMobil funding recipient via Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy), etc- all of whom have set out with the expressed intent of disproving the AGW hypotheses by any means necessary (including lying) in order to attempt to reconcile the prevailing mainstream public opinion with their own interests. Need I mention the personal attacks on the scientists who are not nearly as rich as their oil industry counterparts.

            I'm surprised you haven't given any thought about the real conspiracy perpetuated by those within the fossil fuel lobby. They've got you so deeply fooled into believing their conspiracy theory nonsense that I wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that flue gas has scientifically proven health benefits.

            I'm sorry you disagree so vehemently with my point of view, and am embarrassed for you for resorting to childish name calling. I find it much more probable that existing industry feels threatened enough by scientific observations that it must go to great lengths to slow down the discovery of the truth- as opposed to an elaborate hoax perpetrated to enrich middle class scientists and prevent clean tech startups from taking away from their bottom line.

            There really is no conspiracy at all on either side. It's all right in front of our faces, and it is up to us to take a stand based on what we think is right. You've made up your mind. I'm still learning- and will always be.

            As for now, I'm tired of spending free time between work arguing in circles with you. That is time better spent doing something productive. I hope you find a job or a girlfriend soon. (Zing!)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          • Oh, good. Cameron is now committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, making his fantasy allegations about the persons and supposed motives of Anthony Watts and other folks articulating positions critical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention instead of taking issue with their actual positions on the subject or citing - as requested - what Cameron has claimed to be “either irrelevant or false" about the online offerings of Mr. Watts.

            This in spite of the fact that Cameron - the flaming idiot - had earlier claimed to “…have read plenty of Watts’ material. It’s largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

            Jeez, you'd think that Cameron being so thoroughly familiar with Mr. Watts' stuff that he's well-prepared to condemn it as "either irrelevant or false," the flaming idiot would be well-prepared to lay before the public eye multiple examples of Anthony Watts' irrelevancies and falsehoods.

            Well, Cameron - the flaming idiot - is nothing more than a warmista troll, isn't he? He can't articulate a lucid argument, and hasn't yet come even close to doing so.

            How the dickens, for example, does anybody go about "disproving the AGW hypotheses by any means necessary (including lying)"? To disprove something with a falsehood is to FAIL in that disproof. Efforts to debunk the preposterous bogosity of the "Cargo Cult Science" of CAGW tend strongly to settle upon the address of methodological gaffes, inaccuracies in observational evidence, and the general inability of the warmist pseudoscientists to make their high-priced, jealously guarded, hockey-stick-generating "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" computer climate modeling programs simulate such known historical climate events as the Medieval Warm optimum and the Little Ice Age.

            As I've written here, if a hypothesis has any scientific value at all, it has to reflect the facts of objective reality. Because the computer models which the AGW flim-flam men do their "cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty-dealing" cannot account for the events of the past several centuries, and haven't even been able to explain the "travesty" of the "missing heat" since 1998, those models have ZERO predictive value at all, and therefore no validity as science of any kind.

            I'm sorry that Cameron is a flaming idiot, a complete weasel, and pretty obviously a flagrant liar, unworthy of anything but the hatred and contempt of every honest human being reading here.

            But he's offered nothing other than irrefutable evidence of his duplicity, his malevolence, and his general odiousness. Can't argue with those facts, can we?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          • "I’m sorry that Cameron is a flaming idiot, a complete weasel, and pretty obviously a flagrant liar, unworthy of anything but the hatred and contempt of every honest human being reading here."

            Why? Because I called out the fact that you're making assumptions based on faulty observations? I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. Fine. But there's no need to flame someone because they have a different point of view. You're taking an absolutist stand that I do not agree with because it does not pass the rigors of the scientific method in my opinion.

            As for ad hominem, you've been making the same damn fallacy all along- and claiming an ad hominem is purely subjective if someone's character or motivation IS relevant. Oil money? Political power? Oh gee- those scientists are receiving gov't grants- they must ALL be lying because they want to continue receiving enough funding to keep their middle class lifestyles. At least I don't base my argument on the fact the anti-science crowd gets a lot of funding from oil and coal- or on "shop-talk" emails taken out of context and pounced on by extreme right-wing scavengers. I was merely pointing out that you're basing your eco-conspiracy argument on the same fallacy. That is a fact. If you don't realize it, that is a shame. You're just not listening- like a tantrum-throwing two-year-old with their fingers in their ears.

            What a hypocrite you are.

            If anyone is a troll, it's you, "Tucci." You've got nothing better to do with your life at the current time than post vicious attacks and parrot the same argument that has been debunked several times over. You've managed to come off as bitter, full of hatred, highly egocentric, and a jerk who thinks they are right about everything- contrary to fact. It wasn't I who resorted to name-calling. All that comes across as is projecting one's own self-image. I don't need to sink to that level to get my point across. You did in your very first post- but in my opinion failed to make a coherent argument based on anything substantive, and went on to denigrate me for the position I've taken based on what I know to be the best evidence. You call that a fruitful debate? I say HELL NO.

            If you feel the need to apologize for calling me a "flaming idiot," "complete weasel," "liar," etc, I'll accept it. If not, I'll take satisfaction knowing that you have to live with yourself the way you are.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

          • Cameron, I never apologize for simply making an accurate diagnosis. You're a flaming idiot and a flagrant liar.

            You're also a complete weasel, continually evading a simple "put up or shut up" request about what you've found to be "either irrelevant or false" in the work of Anthony Watts, whose material you have characterized as "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.

            Jeez, Cameron, but - like most "Liberal" fascists I've encountered online - you're too bloody stupid even to know the meaning of the term "ad hominem." When you weaselingly evade the responsibility to address the points of argument voiced (and in order deliberately to draw focus away from those points) you present inferences (or even verified factual information) about the motives of any people articulating those points of contention, you have failed. Completely.

            You never did formal debate even in high school, didja, Cameron? As for whatever undergraduate education you might claim, if there was a course in logic in there anywhere, I've got to venture a guess that you passed (if you passed at all) on some basis other than a genuine grasp of the material.

            I've spoken here about the four billion dollars per year in federal and state government grant money (in these United States alone) to fund "research" into catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) as "secondary gain," discussing it as a definite motivating factor for the fraudsters in "the climate realm" and speaking to some extent about that funding's corrupting influence on meteorology, atmospheric physics, and allied scientific disciplines, but that's always been a matter which is properly secondary, and I've treated it as such. It's the "science" of CAGW itself that's been the central issue, and this I have addressed.

            Think of my discussion of "secondary gain" as mere lagniappe, serving to explain the corruption among the High Priesthood of your idiot personal religion, incidental to the failure of their "Cargo Cult Science" ever to approach compliance with either the scientific method or ethical standards in the professions they're malpracticing.

            Their simulacra of "science" are purest quackery. Have been throughout, and I've been merrily hacking away at this fraud since about 1981, when Dr. Petr Beckmann first pushed it across my desk.

            As for your blather about how - in your diseased little excuse for a mind - I've "managed to come off as bitter, full of hatred, highly egocentric, and a jerk who thinks [he is] right about everything," aren't you aware yet just precisely how much you, personally, deserve to be hated by decent, honest people educated in the sciences for pushing the CAGW bogosity being used concertedly to defraud and impoverish and starve millions of real human beings all over the Earth?

            Cameron, you wouldn't know "best evidence" if it took physical form as a pit bull and went after your "Liberal" fascist Weiner.

            Yeah, I do believe that "flagrant liar" and "flaming idiot" are sufficiently precise technical terms to describe you.

            Mustn't forget "complete weasel," too, of course.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

          • Dude, you seriously have some aggression problems. I feel bad for you.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

          • Here's a prime example of Watt's flawed analyses (note the quips about "alarmists" and sporadic grammatical errors possibly indicating a lack of attention to detail). Essentially he's saying co2 lagging temperature by 800-1000 years is proof co2 is not a climate driver. I disagree.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

            To the contrary, the argument supporting the AGW theory (forget CAGW because I've never argued that in the first place even though you're latched onto it) vitally points out that co2 has quite possibly become a forcing mechanism due to human activity, as opposed to a feedback mechanism within the natural cycle. Hmm, 150 years of burning fossil fuels have anything to do with it perhaps? As I've said before and will say again for the last time, WE DON'T KNOW proportionally how much warming is due to human activity and what the severity is/will be. Yet you idiotically pin me as some absolutist CAGW alarmist. Way off the mark, just like every bit of regurgitated flat-earther troll bile you've spewed all along.

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/overview#section-0

            Can you get that through your thick skull? Or do I need to result to insulting you and your intelligence- oh I'm sorry- that poor excuse for a brain which probably has less of an IQ than the unborn chicken egg that was scrambled, consumed, and up until 3:00 resided in my intestines?

            You don't know anything about me, and you've got the anonymity of the internet to hide behind like the absolutist coward you are. What a horrible example of a Ron Paul "supporter." You're precisely the reason people call us "Paultards" and think we're all a bunch of conspiracy-theory junkie nutbags. We've got diverse opinions on many issues and most of us have civil, substantive discussions and debates on many of them- but not with you. Any vitriol spewed at you, including mine, is well deserved and understated.

            Good night, and good luck living life as a soap dropper. D-Bag.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          • Yep, Cameron is a flaming idiot. In response to an observation of the fact that paleoclimatic evidence demonstrates how previous atmospheric CO2 increases have invariably lagged indicators of global temperature increases by 800 to 1000 years (a chain of causality phenomenon that blows away the AGW fraudsters' sustained bullpuckey about far less profound man-made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as THE critical driving factor in a global warming of which "the climate realm" cartel cannot provide honest, uncorrupted evidence in the instrumental records, Cameron gives us:

            "I disagree."

            And as the Keeling Curve continues to go up and up and up (measuring the anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels) over the past decade and more, the global temperature response continues to be flat-to-negative, invalidating the unsupported and unsupportable conjecture that is the AGW fraud.

            The most that Cameron - the flaming idiot - can come up with (heck, ALL he comes up with) in lieu of substantive support for his "I disagree" blank-out is the standard warmist orthodox handwave about how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) is somehow capable of greater forcing effect than is natural carbon dioxide (nCO2), together with the "explanation" of previous fluctuations in terrestrial temperatures as attributable to the Milankovtch cycles of changes in Earth's orbit, axial tilt, and axial precession.

            All the while, of course, minimizing consideration of variations in the sun's outputs (the Schwabe cycle) and retailing the standard warmist estimations of CO2 radiative forcing numbers while studiedly evading address of atmospheric negative feedback effects, particularly those of clouds.

            Bear in mind that the ONLY thing that the AGW "Cargo Cult Science" presents as "proof" of man-made climate change are computer simulations - climate models - which continue to be notoriously inadequate in accounting for the demonstrated behavior (and effects on heat transfer) of water vapor in the atmosphere.

            These feedback factors are not accounted for in the IPCC-embraced climate models (the received "truth" of which is what we find in Cameron's reference to the OSS Foundation Web page). I would direct readers instead to:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

            In contrast against the AGW caliphate's "practice of building immensely complex and expensive climate models and then making only simple comparisons to satellite data," Dr. Spencer had sought to "Examine the satellite data in great detail, and then build the simplest model that can explain the observed behavior of the climate system."

            Jeez, working from the empirical to devise a theoretical abstraction rather than assembling a "hockey stick" model and then concerting to corrupt the data so as to obliterate ("adjust" away) all the objective evidence which disproves the assumptions upon which the model is based.

            No wonder Dr. Spencer is condemned by the warmistas as a "denier." He adheres to scientific method.

            Those honestly interested in additional reading on the systemic failings of "the climate realm" upon which Cameron fixes his "Liberal" fascist fantasies are directed to:

            http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

            ...in which we find:

            "This paper has attempted to show how changes in the structure of scientific activity over the past half century have led to extreme vulnerability to political manipulation. In the case of climate change, these vulnerabilities have been exploited to a remarkable extent. The dangers that the above situation poses for both science and society are too numerous to be discussed in any sort of adequate way in this paper. It should be stressed that the climate change issue, itself, constitutes a major example of the dangers intrinsic to the structural changes in science."

            This is, of course, in accord with my earlier observation of the corrupting "secondary gain" effects of government funding for "research" conforming to the orthodoxy of catastrophic (the caliphate's desired stirring-up-the-animals descriptor, Cameron) man-made global climate destabilization.

            But back to Cameron's flaming idiot excuse for a "disagree" with Frank Lasner's 2009 guest post observation on Anthony Watts' blog (not Mr. Watts' work at all, but heck, Cameron is a flaming idiot, and can't distinguish authorship) that causality really messes with the peddling of the AGW fraud.

            This leaves us right where we started with regard to Cameron's flaming idiot contention that Anthony Watts' work is "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false."

            Cameron, y'see, hasn't actually found something written by Mr. Watts to offer as an example of what Cameron claims to be “either irrelevant or false.”

            Pretty pointless, ain'tcha, Cameron? Well, you ARE a flaming idiot.

            Real supporters of Dr. Ron Paul - as opposed to "Liberal" fascist trolls like Cameron - understand that the point made about the corrupting effects of government influence in the sciences is line-for-line in accord with Dr. Paul's regard for the proper (and VERY limited) role which the federal government may lawfully assume within the constraints of the Constitution.

            No taxpayer megabucks for politically corrupted "research," no great big hockey-stick-graphing pseudoscientific AGW fraud.

            And Cameron is still trying to masquerade as a supporter of Dr. Paul?

            Oh, it is to laugh.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          • Tucci, you're one stubborn imbecile. You don't listen, and are completely incapable of analyzing anything that doesn't agree with your delusional bias. Not once have I read any shred of understanding of the side you disagree with. Just insults, regurgitated arguments, out-of-context quotations, fallacies, and an unparalleled smug attitude that has gotten pretty damn close to activating my gag reflex. If you're trying to argue a valid point, you killed that chance with your attitude. I can't take seriously anything you say. Someone who speaks with no concept of mutual respect and civility is merely out to denigrate others for not believing what they believe- and oh do you believe it. You're an evangelical anti-science troll.

            Get a life- a job, a girlfriend, a grasp on rational thought and critical thinking. You'd be much wiser and happier- and may actually make some friends someday.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          • Still nothing from this flaming idiot, Cameron, that backs up his blithering noise about how Anthony Watts - trained and experienced meteorologist and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project - is supposed to have produced online criticisms of the AGW fraud that're "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

            Y'see, folks, that's because Cameron is as wrong about Anthony Watts as he is about the whole ponderous blundering hoax that has suckered the Western world in the guise of "climate science."

            If there was anything in any of my posts above which actually constituted "fallacies," Cameron - the flaming "Liberal" fascist warming idiot - would have indicated them specifically, wouldn't he?

            Well, if he were the sort of person capable of even simulating reasoned argument, you'd think he would. But Cameron is a flaming idiot, and therefore incompetent to conduct reasoned argument. All he can do is howl with rage and spew unsupported, inchoate, senseless imprecations.

            Jeez, if we were unfortunate to be standing outside his cage in the primate house, we'd probably get pelted with his feces.

            Have I seemed "smug" in my exchanges with this flaming idiot?

            Well, mea culpa. My only excuse is that - given Cameron's flaming idiocy - it'd be awfully hard for any honest, reasonable, reasoning person NOT to feel brilliant in comparison.

            Cameron is just so pitiful, the poor senseless, stupid little brute.

            Oh, yeah. No "girlfriend" for me. I'm an old married man with a bunch of grandkids (one more before the end of the year). It's one of the reasons why I'm so determined to prevent "Liberal" fascists like Cameron from pushing the economy-destroying criminal fraud of the "global warming" bogosity.

            I've got family to protect. Cameron...well, I've got to doubt that he's even remotely socialized.

            Socialist and sociopathic, certainly. But socially connected with real human beings? Nah.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

    • Stefan C. Kosikowski

      Common sense defeats conspiracy douche-baggery every time!

      Philip = 1
      Tucci = 0

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  14. Tucci, if this is about fraud and money, why do the climate scientists say the science is essentially settled.

    Wouldn't they be saying that there is still a lot of uncertainty, and they need more grant money to get more certainty?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

    • That's all it is about with Tucci. Fraud and money. Good God. At least he could have the decency to present some actual data that may support his opinion. At least UBERNERD based his argument on his interpretation of Dutch sea level records.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

  15. With it becoming evident that there is a large contingent of people hellbent on labeling AGW a fraud or an absolute truth, I feel it necessary to appeal to reason here.

    I think it is foolish to claim the AGW hypothesis a fraud. Just as foolish to claim that the IPCC projections are 100% accurate. The reasonable position, being that few of us are climatologists and/or scientists with a seasoned track record in the field, would be to admit that we DO NOT KNOW.

    It blows me away how arrogant people can be over this subject. Each side holds themselves up as holier than thou, and accuses each other of lying. Civility? If only!

    Rather than resulting to bullying tactics, let's keep this forum pragmatic and engaging. I think Ron Paul would agree with that, if not some of the positions we present for scrutiny.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

    • I repeat, Cameron, that you wouldn't know what a "fraud" is if every Nigerian who ever perpetrated a 419 scam were to personally present at your domicile, crowd into your living room, and carefully explain to you the details of their variation on the Spanish Prisoner con.

      I don't think that it's "arrogant" to point out that you're position on the AGW fraud is "pragmatic" only in the sense of Mrs. O'Connor's observation that the pragmatist insists upon "...dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth."

      When you come up with a definition of "fraud" that runs contrary to what has been perpetrated by the AGW peddlers passing themselves off as "climatologists and what one finds in legal dictionaries ("a false representation of a matter of fact — whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed — that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury"), you'll get back to us, won'tcha, Cameron?

      ===
      "The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards — and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day)."

      -- Leonard Peikoff, “Pragmatism Versus America,” May 6, 1974

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

      • Get over yourself. It's gone from funny to sad. Your mind is firmly made up. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "flaming idiot" in your mind, which again, says volumes more about yourself than it does your intended targets.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

  16. The Dutch have records of sealevel to cm-precision since about the year 1600. A matter of survival because more then half of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
    Record over 4 centuries shows there is NO acceleration whatsoever.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    • Did the Dutch go to Yale or Cambridge to get their doctoral degree? Obviously, we can't trust anybody without a proper piece of paper.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      • Not ALL Dutch have "university degrees" -I have, postdoc UCLA USA- but UK-Dutch-German/French universities in general can readily compete with Harvard,Yale,Princeton, UCLA etc.
        I have commented on the so-called "global warming" issue since the 80s,the skeptics have been banned/censored for 20-30 years effectively and even now it is politically risky to come up with critical comments. Opposed? No grants.
        Carbon dioxide/methane/etc. are at ppm level, water vapor 6-7 powers of 10 higher and variable. The natural greenhouse gas that has kept the temperature of the planet in a domain as to allow life-as-we-know-it.The slow rise of the sea level going on for 10 ooo years is NOT accelerating. UK-researchers East Anglia are known to have tampered with the data.Fired in fact.
        The whole discussion has similarities with the classic -then Catholic-Church/modern science controversy after 1600 ,the latter being developed by Copernicus,Kepler,Newton,Galileo proposing the rotating planet is near-spherical and revolving around the sun if one chooses to adopt a heliocentric coordinate system. Galileo got live-long house-arrest for it.
        Since Einstein we know that any arbitrary point can be chosen as the origin
        at rest of a coordinate system. Things move only RELATIVE to one another. So it is perfectly sound to chose a flagpole in your backyard as the centre of the Universe,it only complicates the mapping of the Solar System.
        One can not avoid the suspicion that so-called "Christian""doom-and-gloom" temperaments confuse the GW-issue, at the same time in this era species evolution and Big Bang-theories being requestioned. Science and education are on the decline now, no wonder if one considers the ultime peak it reached in years 1900-1930 with Planck,Einstein,Bohr,Fermi,Curie, etc.etc.etc. when a tsunami of high intelligence set the stage for the material world as we know it now. The party -alas- can not go on forever apparently.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  17. Excellent post Tucci. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor, far above anything else and never mentioned in the "studies".Like counting the number of sodas consumed in a bar and neglecting the numbers of beers.Cheers!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

    • Water vapor is indeed mentioned numerous times as a major greenhouse gas- but not necessarily a driver. Increased atmospheric CO2 (among other chemical concentrations) is argued to be largely anthropogenic due to the conversion of fossil fuels to exhaust gasses. It is intuitive that the average water vapor contained in the atmosphere increases due to increased surface temperatures, which causes increased rates of evaporation. Whether or not that water vapor in the form of reflective clouds is enough to offset the rise in CO2 concentrations is an interesting point, but I believe may be itself offset by increased desertification in already dry climate zones.

      That is my own thought on the subject. However, I'll be the first to admit that my statement is based on my own understanding of climate patterns- which are amazingly complex.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

  18. One of the most erudite and knowledgeable writers on the subject of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming is literally a retired rocket scientist, Jeff Glassman. I had only recently begun to come across his online comments and Web log (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/), and as I continue to review these offerings, I'm impressed by his thoroughness, his conscientious attention to the principles of scientific inquiry, his implacable honesty, and his familiarity with every weaseling twist and turn of the "Cargo Cult Science" charlatans who've been peddling the AGW fraud for the past several decades.

    I quote Dr. Glassman from a brief article he'd written for non-scientists in December 2007, titled "Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument":

    "Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.

    "AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying 'most scientists believe…,' it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.

    "AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

    "And there’s much, much more.

    "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public."
    ---

    The unavoidable intrinsic qualities of the man-made climate change hypothesis (I'm being charitable here) have been evident from the beginning to any honest person with even the most basic appreciation of scientific method. The failures of the "climatologists" who have found in this preposterous bilge a route to popular attention and - more importantly - literally billions of dollars, Euros, yen, and other currency units wrested from taxpayers at gunpoint and sluiced into the feeding trough by politicians and bureaucrats as "research grants" simply cannot be denied.

    The AGW cabal consists entirely of second-rate con artists with third-rate academic credentials, pushing fourth-rate hokum to perpetrate a first-rate hoax that is costing honest human beings their property, their liberties, and even their lives themselves.

    There is no defense for pseudoscientific fraud, and that's what "man-made climate change" has always been, and will always be.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6

    • Do you even know what a fallacy is? Apparently not- as evidenced by your post. You blatantly cherrypicked quotations from a "rocket scientist" (wow, impressive, but not a climatologist) who supports your opinion. The fact is that you do not know what is really happening with the climate- and nobody truly knows.

      I can respect an argument based on facts, but not on conjecture and cherrypicked quotations from someone outside the climate realm. Being skeptical is far different from being in denial or being biased. I agree that a consensus isn't a way to base your stance (like the pre-Columbus flat earthers), but a consensus also doesn't necessarily warrant denial.

      Work on your own argument instead of arguing on behalf of a "rocket scientist." Don't leave discovering the truth up to others. Do your own due dilligence. You may be very surprised at what you find.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13

      • Yes, Cameron, I know what a fallacy is. Including those you stumbled into in your own post - like argument from authority ("not a climatologist") and implied bandwagon.

        Haven't I seen you encountering Dr. Glassman in other online fora? In the same sense that a decaying Limburger cheese might encounter a spinning buzzsaw blade?

        For your further education, Cameron, "cherrypicking" is not the quotation of a cited individual (particularly when the title and date of the full published article from which the quotation is drawn has been given), but rather the duplicitous practice of deliberately providing incomplete evidence, especially with the suppression of evidence adverse to the position advocated by the disputant perpetrating the lie. I believe the lawyers refer to it as "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi."

        You know. What Dr. Mann did to "hide the decline."

        Were you to aver that I was drawing upon Dr. Glassman's article selectively in order to imply that his overall meaning and intentions were at variance with the quoted passage, then you might be making a real "cherrypicking" accusation.

        Mendaciously, of course, as anyone who reads the full text of the article would readily understand. So you're not even familiar with what the word "cherrypicking" really means, are you?

        In response to your Joe-Romm-Guidebook "not a climatologist" fallacy, there's that instantly recognizable old proverb about not needing to be a hen to know when an egg is rotten.

        The constant bullpuckey about how only the High Priesthood of "the climate realm" can interpret the pigeon entrails and clattering runesticks of your beloved bogosity belies the fact that honest and scrupulous adherence to scientific method is designed to present, step by step, the reasoned argument which - supported by objective evidence - is advanced to test each conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law (thus the title of Dr. Glassman's article).

        Genuine familiarity with that method, even when it arises in the course of an education and career in other scientific disciplines (engineering, physics, microbiology, medicine, or meteorology, for example), prepares the individual outside "the climate realm" to assess the methods being employed by the AGW cabal malpracticing under the guise of expert qualification, and perceive the failures of these fraudsters to adhere to standards of professional reliability in their "research" as well as their departures from the ethical conduct expected of real scientists.

        As for Dr. Glassman's qualifications - as a rocket scientist - to speak on the subject of atmospheric physics, Cameron, were you aware that the position from which he had retired was that of Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions for Hughes Aircraft?

        In response to Dr. Judith Curry's recent request for background from readers and frequent posters on her "Climate Etc." climatology Web log (see http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/), Dr. Glassman provided an informal vitae which reads as follows:

        "BS, MS, PhD, UCLA Engineering, Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, digital systems, applied physics, communication and information theory. Hughes Staff Doctoral Fellow. Electro Optical Systems scholarship. Masters Thesis: Effects of Digital Computer Parallelism in Solving for the Roots of a Polynomial. Doctoral Dissertation: Efficient Processing of Electroencephalographic Data. Mathematician B, Northrop Corp., performing analog computer circuit analysis, environmental stress and missile reliability studies. US Naval Aviator, aircraft commander, flight instructor, maintenance test pilot. Helicopter bush pilot in Alaska. Hughes Aircraft Company, Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development Division and Microelectronics Systems Divisions, responsible for engineering; engineering development; manufacturing methods and transition to production, on-shore and off-shore; IR&D; and division, product line, and technology investment planning. Cross-trained engineers in basic science, and physical scientists in engineering. Since retiring from Hughes, consulted in various high tech fields, including expert defense witness on communication satellite anomalies in Astrium v. TRW, et al., and CDMA instructor at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes, UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author, Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire, 1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6, a reference on science for educators. Expert modeler of diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and millimeter wave detection and propagation in the atmosphere and in solids; ballistic re-entry trajectories; signal processing; multi-sensor target tracking; missile navigation and guidance; solar radiation; thermal modeling of avionics and microcircuit devices; infrared communication; broadband and secure wire communications; analog and digital signals; large scale fire control systems; molecular diffusion in solids; sonar propagation and target tracking tactics; and real-time orthonormal decomposition of electroencephalographic signals. Inventor, radar on-target detection device, stereo digital signal processor. Author, A Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1972. Taught detection and estimation theory, probability theory, digital signal processing, orthogonal transform theory. Peer reviewer, Microwave Journal.

        "While aware of the Keeling Curve from its inception along with the coincidental rise in global temperatures, my interest in climate peaked with the publication of IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, a semi-scientific document directed to World politicians for action, and sounding a public alarm based on immature models. I considered this document ethically challenged. It promotes public action based a scientific model that is less than a theory, lacking validation. It was promoting a model that was less than a hypothesis (1) lacking any prediction for validation other than the ultimate catastrophe, and (2) not fitting all the data in its domain. On inspection, this document revealed incredible naiveté in physics, in data processing, and in system modeling, aggravated by a pattern of misrepresentation of technical information. This professional opinion is equally valid for IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

        "What I have learned from my climate studies is too extensive to list here. The facts are documented and discussed at length in my Rocket Scientist’s Journal, a repository for technical papers, specializing in climate since October, 2006."
        --

        No "cherrypicking," of course.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      • A consensus does warrant a denial of its authority that is based on it being a consensus.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

        • Fluidly Unsure writes: "A consensus does warrant a denial of its authority that is based on it being a consensus."

          Consensus qua consensus does not automatically disqualify the position advanced thereby, but to claim that a particular conjecture - the AGW fraud in this case - is valid on the basis of no real argument other than that it is maintained by a consensus within what Cameron has called "the climate realm" is not only a formal fallacy of logical disputation but also a violation of scientific method.

          Were the "climate catastrophe" alarmists to state that the AGW conjecture must be accepted because there is absolutely no evidence disproving the hypothesis that the gradual global warming documented at a slow, steady rate since about 1850 (the end of the Little Ice Age) is caused by man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (look up "Keeling Curve"), then we might have an assertion couched in a form worthy of consideration.

          Why don't the AGW alarmists make such a statement?

          Well, the don't do it because - especially with advancements in instrumental evidence-gathering technologies over the past couple of decades (emphasis on both earth-orbiting satellite observation platforms and oceanographic systems like the ARGO buoys) - the preponderance of evidence disproves the AGW conjecture repeatedly and emphatically.

          This is why the exposure of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) e-mail correspondents in the Climategate revelations (17 November 2009) simply provided genuinely undeniable confirmation of what honestly and scrupulously skeptical scientists all over the world had suspected for more than twenty years: that "the climate realm" apparatchiki had been colluding to control and corrupt the key global surface temperature datasets so as to falsely present the impression that the continuing increases of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 were being accompanied by proportional increases in surface temperature levels.

          This in spite of the fact that real, uncorrupted instrumental temperature measurements since about 1998 had shown either a flattened temperature response (very, very little real increase) or a downward trend in those temperatures in spite of continuing and even accelerating increases in man-made atmospheric CO2 levels.

          The AGW conjecture - man-made CO2 is causing global warming - began to be disproven more than a decade ago, and continues to be emphatically disproven today. According to the man-made climate change contention, global temperatures should be going up and up and up because man-made CO2 levels are going up and up and up.

          No proportional rise in real global temperatures, no man-made global warming. It really is that simple.

          Honest scientists - and here we write completely out of consideration the consensus in "the climate realm" exposed in the Climategate information dump, which consisted not only of their e-mail exchanges but also their computer simulation programming code and their purposefully corrupted temperature datasets - understand full well that the AGW conjecture was a preposterous blunder the moment it was formally advanced by the incompetents calling themselves "climatologists" more than thirty years ago.

          Since then, the blunder has been turned into a fraud picked up by political opportunists like Al Gore, academically credentialed liars like Dr. Michael Mann, and "Liberal" fascists in all areas of public discourse.

          I would not have anyone reading here conclude that the anthropogenic global warming conjecture is invalid ONLY because it is being defended by a consensus within "the climate realm" but rather because no other defense for this spectacular bogosity is being advanced EXCEPT that it is the product of that consensus.

          Hans Christian Anderson might as well have been writing about the AGW fraud when he submitted "The Emperor's New Clothes" to his publisher.

          Those of you who have been suckered by the perpetrators of this fraud are even more to be condemned than the sycophantic fools in the Emperor's court and capital.

          After all, the people in Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale knew that their vainglorious idiot Emperor was walking down the street Weiner-style, with all his shortcomings on public view, and were only offering up a pretense of admiration for his fine new "garments."

          You unspeakable jerks really BELIEVE this "global warming" garbage, don't you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

          • Tucci, having read your posts (as nauseatingly full of arrogance as they are), I can tell you're failing to make a valid case here, and you're making it very difficult to have an engaging discussion with those who disagree with your positon. You're conclusion is that AGW is a fraud. That is completely different from being rightfully skeptical of various AGW hypotheses. As I've posted in these forums before (specifically and only RonPaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/#comments), I've stated numerous times that nobody truly claims to know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame. The Earth's climate is incredibly complex, and claiming that the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW being either 100% accurate or not is outright FOOLISH. Even more foolish would be dismissing it as a fraud based on the suppositions of those who have done far less than give the subject any serious objective thought- let alone put the many AGW hypotheses through the rigors of scientific method on their own.

            All you are doing is pooh-poohing those who are seriously studying AGW and its causes and effects- or lack thereof. Of course you're cherrypicking. Mentioning "hiding the decline" is a prime example of taking information completely out of context to support your opinion, as is focusing on data collected since 1998. Stick to literature. Science doesn't seem to be a natural fit for you.

            As for my opinion on the subject- I do not believe that AGW is a fraud. However, I have my doubts as to the severity or lack thereof. It may be worse than we are predicting, or it might be that somehow there have been errors in the data collection processes and it is really not much of an issue. Either way, humanity is faced with many issues including population growth, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation.

            I do believe we ought to be adopting alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels, which I absolutely think should not be tied to AGW. Adopting these measures may be a tremendously helpful mitigating factor as a side effect, but energy security and volatility ought to be the primary drivers for this. It already is.

            I think that is a pragmatic stand to take; as opposed to claiming outright that AGW is a fraud without presenting any evidence of your own to back it up. If you want to claim that, you've got your 1st Amendment right to do so, but you're potentially spreading misleading information. I can't respect that. Remember: AGW is NOT a theory, nor a law. It is a hypothesis, and has always been. Calling it a fact (ie a LAW) is as foolish as calling it a fraud.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

          • Tucci78- "You unspeakable jerks really BELIEVE this “global warming” garbage, don’t you?"

            Classy. Exactly my point.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

          • Cameron, any nominal "scientist" who is evading the responsibility to open his observational data and methods of both investigation and analysis to critical consideration is not following the accepted practices of scientific investigation. The Climategate revelations confirmed that the Climatic Research Unit e-mail correspondents were concerting to deny such access to people who were not "in" on their coordinated support for the AGW conjecture.

            This is obviously the reason why the person(s) releasing the Climategate datadump to the Internet titled the archive file - containing not only the e-mails appreciable by most readers but also the climate model computer code and the global temperature database information steadfastly refused to law-abiding requesters by Prof. Phil Jones of the C.R.U. in criminal violation of the UK's Freedom of Information statutes - "FOIA2009.zip."

            The "hide the decline" remark in those e-mails was not "cherrypicked." It is simply appropriate to emphasize it as one of the most easily appreciated indicators of what the C.R.U. correspondents were doing to evade their professional responsibilities in presenting support for their conjecture that human action is the cause - THE cause - of catastrophic total planetary warming by way of the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.

            I'm happy to learn that you are so thoroughly discomfited by my previous posts, which you find "nauseatingly full of arrogance," because you, Cameron, are proving to be obdurately obtuse to the point of abject cement-headedness.

            You are claiming that you have "...stated numerous times that nobody truly claims to know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame," in spite of continually mounting confirmation of the fact that the participants in the warmist cabal "who are seriously studying AGW and its causes and effects" have been actively colluding to present a coherent support for both megabuck government "research" grants and policy recommendations aimed at coercive government action to violate the rights of millions upon millions of real human beings.

            These members of "the climate realm" have put forward their contentions in ways designed to give every impression that they DO indeed "know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame."

            And you can't perceive this?

            Well, you don't seem capable of perceiving the indications of purposeful coherence in "the climate realm" - which is completely contrary to the professional ethics and methodology of scientific investigation of any kind. I suspect that you couldn't twig to a fraud if you were gulled by the most clumsy variation on the pigeon drop.

            Gotten suckered by any Nigerian e-mails lately?

            Though I've been following the preposterous bogosity of the AGW conjecture for a bit more than thirty years, it wasn't until Climategate that I had my nose rubbed thoroughly in the fact that it was - and continues to be - a fraud. The "science" of it never once EVER passed the smell test, but the stench became absolutely undeniable once the computer modelling code (and that "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file full of programmer's notes) hit the 'Net.

            Cameron, have you ever once bothered to set that "hide the decline" remark in context? Or are you afraid that you're going to break your teeth on that particular cherry pit?

            You say that you "...do not believe that AGW is a fraud." Oh? Let's see; we have a bunch of grant-seeking "climatologists" working together to push a concept which lacks support in the form of either experimental or observational evidence, deliberately excluding (even actively suppressing) consideration of environmental negative feedback mechanisms which are demonstrated to mitigate global warming AND those temperature increase factors which are beyond the control of human beings, in order to press the case for a "catastrophic" man-made climate destabilization that must demand ever more billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded "research" as well as even more unspeakably costly regulations and restrictions upon people's access to energy.

            And you don't call this "fraud," Cameron?

            Jeez. What DO you call "fraud"? You got some kind of definition that supercedes "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain"?

            As for your belief (religious belief?) that "...we ought to be adopting alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels," could you please explain why?

            When advances in the technologies of extraction are enabling the economically viable exploitation of massive liquid and gaseous petrochemical reservoirs within the continental United States, so that we hold accessible domestic stocks of both crude oil and natural gas far in excess of ALL the oil ever discovered in the Middle East, sufficient for America to become the world's greatest oil exporter, on just what the hell do you base your belief that "alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels" - which all cost a helluva lot more than either natural gas or petroleum distillates - ought to be adopted?

            Have you paid any attention, Cameron, to what the effects of federally mandated "gasohol" (the diversion of grain like corn to the production of ethanol as a damned poor motor fuel extender) have been on world food prices?

            Because of people like you, with your flaming idiot religious belief in "alternative sources of energy," there are real people in America who are going hungry because they're having trouble paying for groceries, and even more people in Third-World countries who are literally starving to death.

            You're burning their food, Cameron. Nice "alternative" there, boyo.

            God preserve the human race from people who fixate so thoroughly on what they think is "pragmatic" that they can't perceive reality when it whacks them across the mouth.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

          • Again, I'm amazed by your class. Your post is full of fluff and suppositions intended to mask your amazing lack of objectiveness on this subject.

            The fact you base your fraud argument on your perception of climate scientists receiving mega-buck grants siphoned from honest taxpayers highlights this firm belief in conspiracy theory nonsense of yours. It comes across as a fantasy. You ultimately may or may not be right, but the amount of resistance to the mere thought of AGW even being a slight possibility is as insanely religious as you claim my so-called "fixation" on pragmatism to be. It is borderline obsessive- and I'm being charitable. Judging by the "flaming idiot" remark, me "buring their food" (as in hungry Americans), the disregard to environmentally destructive fossil fuel extraction methods, etc, there's really no point in attempting to have a substantive argument with you. Doing so is a waste of time. We may as well just start calling each other names. Well, at least I should because you've gotten a nice head start on me there.

            It is plainly obvious that you think people who do not share your point of view are of lesser intelligence- and that speaks VOLUMES more about your character than it does me or anyone else with a differing point of view.

            ----------------
            Tucci78-

            "And you don’t call this “fraud,” Cameron?

            Jeez. What DO you call “fraud”? You got some kind of definition that supercedes “a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain”?"

            No, "Tucci," I call it conjecture because you've offered absolutely ZERO evidence to support your point of view. As you have an evident habit of doing.

            Good night.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12

          • Cameron, when doctors deal with patients seeking sedative hypnotic and narcotic drugs beyond what are genuinely needed for the management of anxiety and pain, we speak of "secondary gain," the effects of those psychoactive substances which such patients conceive to be so pleasurable that they will lie, cheat, and steal to obtain them.

            In these United States, federal and state government agencies have for the past several years dispensed an average of four billion dollars in grants for the specific purpose of funding research into "global warming."

            Four billion dollars per year.

            You want to discuss "secondary gain," Cameron? There's more than just that four billion bucks driving the unethical behavior of the AGW caliphate, but that appears to be the pivotal factor. Without funding (as well as the prestige and academic advancements which come with such funding), none of these third-rate credentialed quacks would have found catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) "...the way to promotion and pay."

            With continuing exposure of their concerted efforts to promote each other in the peddling of this "Cargo Cult Science" of man-made climate change - practicing "pal review" of each other's papers while using the extortion of journal editors and the perversion of the peer review error-checking mechanism to suppress the publication of work which presents evidence disproving the AGW contention - how do you, Cameron, continue in your cement-headed insistence that what they're doing is not presumptively evidentiary of a coherent scheme entered into by these participants in "the climate realm" to perpetrate fraud?

            Your facile MoveOn.org dismissal of the mounting manifest of these "climatologists" violations of professional ethical standards and deliberately coordinated duplicitous machinations as "conspiracy theory" would be beneath contempt were it not for the plain fact that you've proven yourself in your substitutes for argument on this forum to be worthy of no other assessment.

            People DO conspire to achieve undeserved and unlawful gain, Cameron. The conduct of the C.R.U. correspondents exposed in the Climategate revelations - both before and after their covers were irrevocably blown in November 2009 - bear all the hallmarks of such coherence of purpose and method, and their communications have confirmed this.

            Just what the hell is YOUR secondary gain in thought-blocking acknowledgement of this fact?

            As for allegedly "environmentally destructive fossil fuel extraction methods," Cameron, put forward some sort of lucid, supported argument to the effect that the methods recently developed to economically draw upon deep, hard-rock reservoirs of natural gas and crude oil are in any significant way more likely to contaminate shallow aquifers, pollute surface water, or otherwise do damage to the environment than are methods that have been in wide use for the past century and more.

            Hydraulic fracturing of oil- and methane-bearing low-permeability rock has been employed since 1947, and the only relatively new development associated with this extraction technology has been dirigible horizontal drilling with fractional perforation of the target-depth concrete casings to increase the efficiencies of the fracturing and extraction undertaken. This reduces the above-ground "footprint" of the drilling and extraction processes, mitigating both monetary costs and environmental damage potential.

            Have you even bothered to read about this, Cameron, or are you just regurgitating the NIMBY/BANANA Luddites' contentions that this is too horrible-awful-nasty to be allowed?

            As for your flaming idiot fixation on "biofuels," Cameron, search the Web for an article in *The Washington Post* by Princeton research scholar Tim Searchinger explaining “How biofuels contribute to the food crisis.” From that article:

            "Biofuels have grown rapidly, from consuming 2 percent of world grain and virtually no vegetable oil in 2004 to more than 6.5 percent of grain and 8 percent of vegetable oil last year. Governments worldwide seek to triple production of biofuels by 2020, and that implies more moderately high prices after good growing years and soaring prices after bad ones."

            I repeat, Cameron: your "alternative" consists of burning poor people's food.

            Any suggestions about what kind of names I should be calling you besides "flaming idiot"?

            I'm always open to suggestions.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          • You just blew any and all credibility by claiming I have a flaming idiot fixation on biofuels. Biofuels??? Are you f***ing joking? For Gods sake I think anyone aside from wealthy corn growers would agree that ethanol subsidies have been a total waste of time and money. Again proving my point that your mind is already made up, and that you are a firm believer in your own perceived intellectual superiority.

            What a joke!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

        • But Cameron, you ARE a flaming idiot. What "credibility" have you shown in this forum? What the hell kind of supported argument have you yet made?

          And you've just proved that you will not bother to read a cited reference (Searchinger's article in *The Washington Post* on February 11, 2011) about your beloved biofuels and how:

          "Each year, the world demands more grain, and this year the world's farms will not produce it. World food prices have surged above the food crisis levels of 2008. Millions more people will be malnourished, and hundreds of millions who are already hungry will eat less or give up other necessities. Food riots have started again."

          Who else but a flaming idiot so consistently displays your kind of behavior, Cameron?

          (By the bye, it's not just corn and vegetable oil costs that have been rising. In Brazil, they're converting sucrose - table sugar - to fuel ethanol, and world sugar prices have also been going up. Just as with liquid petroleum, the world's markets in food commodities are fungible. Pull one kind of carbohydrate or lipid out of the chain of supply by way of government-induced pricing distortions, and the consumer costs of other grains and oils must rise in response to the diversions taking place. Jeez, Cameron, you're frequenting Ron Paul's Web site without having any appreciation of Austrian Economics 101?)

          I'm not sure how I escape appreciation of my own relative "intellectual superiority" when you insist on demonstrating your own comparative stupidity.

          Be nice to think that you're "a joke," Cameron, but you quit being funny (except in the "peculiar" sense) five posts ago.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

          • What's with the fixation on biofuels now? Not once have I said I support ethanol subsidies. In fact, I just took an opposite stance. All of the hot air coming from your general direction may indeed be the largest source of man-made greenhouse gasses. You ought to be regulated.

            Biofuels currently in use in fact have been proven to cause more harm than good in both an economic and environmental sense.

            If anything I support solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass (much different than ethanol or gasohol), nuclear, and natural gas (although the last two not considered "alternative" or "clean" in terms of extraction).

            You're losing your mind sir. I'm not stooping to your level of childish name calling. You seriously need some rest. You're either completely misreading what I've been saying, or you're lying. Knock it off.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

          • Cameron, when noises are made about "alternative" energy sources, biofuels are effectively automatically implied, particularly with regard to fuel feedstocks for motor vehicles. Your listing of:

            "...solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass (much different than ethanol or gasohol), nuclear, and natural gas (although the last two not considered 'alternative' or 'clean' in terms of extraction)"

            ...does naught but to demonstrate that you've put no real thought into this area, either.

            Solar and wind power are too diffuse (unless you're talking about solar power satellites in orbit around the Earth, in which case I'm with ya) and too variable to serve the needs of an industrial civilization. Geothermal power generation can only be charitably described as in the "pipedream" stage of implementation, hydroelectric generation is effectively saturated (there are only so many places where such dams can be sited), nuclear fission is pestered by NIMBY/BANANA "precautionary principle" opposition, and you don't want natural gas because to get it with any reasonable economy we have to get into deep-rock "fracking," which you oppose.

            I'm surprised you haven't mentioned tidal power generation. That's impracticable, too.

            So you've got nothing to offer that would provide our economy with the fuel needed to keep cars running and commerce from grinding to a halt? You don't want us to frack the Bakken for oil, you probably don't want bituminous coal processed to make gasoline or Diesel oil, and I'd hazard a guess that if you knew anything at all about thermal depolymerization, you'd condemn it out of flaming idiot reflex.

            I've been in favor of building more nuclear power generating stations for the past four decades (with particular interest in the thorium fuel cycle), but there are so very many flaming idiots out there who cannot hear the word "radiation" without turning into gibbering lunatics that I have no confidence in seeing the industry rebound from the unreasoning and unreasonable safety concerns of the botched and the gullible.

            Did I forget "biomass"? Oops. Rotting vegetation and other stuff, generating the same sort of methane (among other, more malodorous chemicals) that comes off manure piles and landfills as a dangerous byproduct of decay. Swamp gas. Yeah, we can power the major metropolitan areas and what few industries are left in America by the time Barry Soebarkah is carted off by the U.S. Marshals for criminal violation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

            Cameron, without biofuels, have you got an "alternative" energy source that people can put into their cars and trucks to get themselves to and from work?

            If not, and if swamp gas and pipedreams and self-foreclosing impracticabilities are all you've got to offer, why don't you quit talking about energy altogether?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

      • Fluidly Unsure

        Why is a physics scientist to be ignored (Glassman)? The process of CC is one of physics. The differences between the two disciplines is probably small and valid arguments of one would probably have an impact in the others. It is like a BMW mechanic that may not know where the bolts holding the break pads are on a Honda Civic, but he does know how a brake system works. He can also diagnose when the rotors are too thin to be safe and when a Honda mechanic is trying to scare the car owner into buying unneeded rotors.

        Why is a mathematician to be ignored (McIntyre)? He probably knows about statistics and how statistics can be misused better than other scientists. Last time I looked, Steve McIntyre's "climate audit" focused on the fallacy of the "hockey stick" which is his specialty, and didn't try to make conjectures beyond his specialty.

        If you don't think scientists can input their feedback then quit using the science/non-science argument. You are making it look like you are hiding something.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  19. We need to start by ending ALL energy subsidies; oil, ethanol, solar, and wind. If any of these are worth their cost, the market will push them to the top. If the current progressive government had been in power one hundred years ago, Henry Ford would have found himself competing against a government subsidy for horses. Maybe they would have called it "Government for Horse's Asses and by the Horse's Asses".

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  20. "On the general subject of answering skeptics about climate change, here’s a website that shows answers to the biggest claims:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/"

    Quoted for emphasis

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

    • Francis, John Cook's "Skeptical Science" blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) is a flagrantly alarmist CAGW site that operates only to push the preposterous fraud whose proponents seek to reduce the majority of the human race to a condition indistinguishable from neolithic hunter-gatherers freezing and starving to death in the dark.

      Ever think about why the global warming "True Believers" have had to make this particular effort to combat skepticism - a scientific virtue - about their "Cargo Cult Science" substitute for honest and open inquiry?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 6 = fourteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>